Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2005 Jun;14(3):207-17.
doi: 10.1007/s10897-005-0384-3.

Men's decision-making about predictive BRCA1/2 testing: the role of family

Affiliations
Review

Men's decision-making about predictive BRCA1/2 testing: the role of family

N Hallowell et al. J Genet Couns. 2005 Jun.

Abstract

Men who have a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer may be offered a predictive genetic test to determine whether or not they carry the family specific BRCA1/2 mutation. Male carriers may be at increased risk of breast and prostate cancers. Relatively little is known about at-risk men's decision-making about BRCA1/2 testing. This qualitative study explores the influences on male patients' genetic test decisions. Twenty-nine in-depth interviews were undertaken with both carrier and noncarrier men and immediate family members (17 male patients, 8 female partners, and 4 adult children). These explored family members' experiences of cancer and genetic testing, decision-making about testing, family support, communication of test results within the family, risk perception and risk management. Implicit influences on men's testing decisions such as familial obligations are examined. The extent to which other family members--partners and adult children--were involved in testing decisions is also described. It is demonstrated that mothers of potential mutation carriers not only perceive themselves as having a right to be involved in making this decision, but also were perceived by their male partners as having a legitimate role to play in decision-making. There was evidence that (adult) children were excluded from the decision-making, and some expressed resentment about this. The implications of these findings for the practice of genetic counseling are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Nov;9(11):1251-4 - PubMed
    1. J Med Genet. 1998 Sep;35(9):739-44 - PubMed
    1. Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Jan;56(1):265-71 - PubMed
    1. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004 May-Jun;49(3):210-9 - PubMed
    1. J Genet Couns. 2003 Oct;12(5):405-17 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources