Decisional conflict and knowledge in women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants: An exploratory age group analysis of a randomised controlled decision aid trial
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 19, Issue: 10 October, Page: e0311432
2024
- 4Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures4
- Readers4
Article Description
Female BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers face substantial risks for breast and ovarian cancer. Evidence-based decision aids (DAs) can facilitate these women in their decision-making process on an individually suitable preventive strategy. However, there is a gap in previous literature exploring whether DA effectiveness varies according to women’s age. This is an exploratory subanalysis with a descriptive approach from a randomised controlled study assessing the effectiveness of a German decision aid (DA) for women with BRCA1/2 PVs compared to no DA use. From the original sample, women aged 18–40 years and >40 years and the intervention and control groups (IG, CG) within each of the age groups were compared regarding decisional conflict (using the Decisional Conflict Scale DCS) and knowledge at baseline and after DA use three and six months post study inclusion. The subanalysis involved 236 women aged 18–40 and 181 women aged >40 years. At baseline, both age groups differed significantly in all socio-demographic variables, except BRCA1/2 PV distributions. The younger age group displayed higher scores in the DCS subscale informed (p = .002) and higher knowledge (p = .010). Among the 18-40-year-olds, DA use (versus no DA) led to improvements in the DCS subscale informed at three (p = .025) and six months (p = .000). In the >40-year-olds, DA use (versus no DA) led to improvements in the DCS subscales informed (p = .028), values clarity (p = .028) and support (p = .030) and increased knowledge at three months (p = .048). These results indicate that both age groups benefited from DA use, but the older ones did so to a greater extent. This suggests that it might be useful to tailor DAs more closely to age- or life stage-related needs to enable more personalised care and support for women with BRCA1/2 PVs.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85207340788&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311432; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39446752; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311432; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311432; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311432
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know