4.3 Article

Identification of cognitive profiles among women considering BRCA1/2 testing through the utilisation of cluster analytic techniques

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY & HEALTH
Volume 26, Issue 10, Pages 1327-1343

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2010.521938

Keywords

breast and ovarian cancer risk; cluster analysis; cognitive profile; genetic testing; psychological distress

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA006927, 5P01 CA057586, P30 CA06927, P01 CA057586, R01CA06128004, R01 CA104979] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [R01 HG00176603] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA006927, R01CA061280, R01CA104979, P01CA057586] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [R01HG001766] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on the cognitive-social health information processing model, we identified cognitive profiles of women at risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Prior to genetic counselling, participants (N = 171) completed a study questionnaire concerning their cognitive and affective responses to being at genetic risk. Using cluster analysis, four cognitive profiles were generated: (a) high perceived risk/low coping; (b) low value of screening/high expectancy of cancer; (c) moderate perceived risk/moderate efficacy of prevention/low informativeness of test result; and (d) high efficacy of prevention/high coping. The majority of women in Clusters One, Two and Three had no personal history of cancer, whereas Cluster Four consisted almost entirely of women affected with cancer. Women in Cluster One had the highest number of affected relatives and experienced higher levels of distress than women in the other three clusters. These results highlight the need to consider the psychological profile of women undergoing genetic testing when designing counselling interventions and messages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available