Information needs of Lynch syndrome and BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers considering risk-reducing gynecological surgery: a qualitative study of the decision-making process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk-reducing gynecological surgery (RRGS) is a prophylactic procedure that may be offered to BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome (LS) mutation carriers to reduce the risk of developing gynecological cancer. This study was conducted to better understand patients' information needs and evaluate how patients weigh different sources of information in their decision-making process surrounding RRGS. METHODS: This study used a qualitative approach to understanding women's perspectives towards RRGS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually with 8 women. Women offered RRGS between 35 and 70 years of age who are English-speaking and have an identifiable BRCA or LS mutation were included. Data from interviews was coded with constant comparative analysis to develop themes. RESULTS: Of the eight women, six had selected to undergo either prophylactic hysterectomy or oophorectomy: 5 decided yes to RRGS; 1 decided no; 2 were undecided. Thematic analysis found that the key factors affecting women's decisions around prophylactic surgery were cancer risk, surgical menopause, and psychological readiness. To make an informed decision, women relied most heavily on information provided by healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors, genetic counselors) and family members with prior cancer experience. However, some women reported that they did not feel adequately informed enough to make a decision and identified COVID-19 as a significant barrier affecting access to information. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study revealed the key sources of information influencing attitudes regarding RRGS and how women consulted different sources of information to reach a decision. Results underscore the need for greater attention to women's information needs in the context of psychological readiness, particularly amidst the pandemic. Research involving a larger sample size may help to better inform how support can be provided to individuals with BRCA and LS mutations considering RRGS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".