2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/165477
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Women's Decision Making Experience After BRCA Genetic Testing
Author(s):
Perry, C.
Author Details:
C. Perry, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
Abstract:
Women's Decision Making Experiences Following Positive or Inconclusive Breast Cancer (BRCA) Genetic Testing Purpose: Problem: How do women make decisions about risk reduction and disease detection options after testing positive or inconclusive for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genetic mutations? Purpose: The two objectives of this qualitative study are: (1) to explore ways in which women with positive and inconclusive breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2) mutation test results assign meaning, make interpretations, and respond to test results and recommendations for risk reduction and disease detection strategic interventions; and (2) to develop a grounded theory based on the perceptions, beliefs, and actions of these women. Theoretical/Scientific Framework: This qualitative study uses a grounded theory approach because grounded theory enables the experience of the participant to be heard in a more natural context. Glaser and Strauss (1967) introduced grounded theory as a methodological approach that provides the discovery of theory from qualitative data. Pragmatism and symbolic interactionism are the ontological bases of grounded theory, and the phenomena of concern are patterns and processes of social units (Parse, 2001). Grounded theory, because it is drawn from data, will provide insight, enhance understanding, and provide a meaningful guide to action for women making risk reduction and disease detection decisions due to positive and inconclusive BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation test results. Methods: This is a qualitative study using grounded theory methodology. Grounded theory provides the means for elucidating human decision behaviors and meanings in a social interactional context. Data is being collected using open-ended, semi-structured interviews, field notes, and memos. Sample: Theoretical or purposeful sampling will be performed to focus efforts on theoretically useful cases (e.g. those that test and/or extend theory). It is anticipated a sample of possibly 15 participants in each subgroup will be needed. Final sample size will be determined based on informational redundancy or saturation, the point at which no new information is forthcoming from the data-collection process. When saturation occurs, one additional interview will be conducted for verification purposes (Norwood, 2000, Sandelowski, 1995). Approximately 30 (15 in each group) English speaking females, ages 18 years and older, who test positive or inconclusive for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation will be sought. The population will be drawn from clients the PI has seen and tested in her clinic. Women are considered ineligible for this study if they have a diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer or a psychiatric or cognitive disorder, which preclude informed consent. Inconclusive test results are those in which the lab identifies a new Data Analysis: The constant comparative method of Grounded Theory will be used to simultaneously collect, code and analyze the transcribed interviews, field notes, and memos (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Three levels of coding will be used. Analysis of data will begin with open coding (Glaser, 1978), generating level I or “in vivo” codes. Level II coding will cluster codes by similarities and differences, compare codes across the data set and abstract phenomena observed, which will be labeled as categories. Theoretical coding will be used to examine the relationships among the categories, aided by schemes and diagrams to see how the categories fit (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Selective coding (level III) will focus on the core variable, further establishing the linkages between categories and moving the data to a more abstract level to explain the basic social process inherent in decision making by women with positive and inconclusive BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations test results (Glaser, 1990). A qualitative computer software program, NVIVO, will be used to help manage and analyze the data. Credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are four factors necessary to establish trustworthiness of the data (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). These factors will be addressed by the following Findings and Implications: This study is in progress.
Repository Posting Date:
27-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
27-Oct-2011
Conference Date:
2004
Conference Name:
29th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congress
Conference Host:
Oncology Nursing Society
Conference Location:
Anaheim, California, USA
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_US
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleWomen's Decision Making Experience After BRCA Genetic Testingen_GB
dc.contributor.authorPerry, C.en_US
dc.author.detailsC. Perry, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USAen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/165477-
dc.description.abstractWomen's Decision Making Experiences Following Positive or Inconclusive Breast Cancer (BRCA) Genetic Testing Purpose: Problem: How do women make decisions about risk reduction and disease detection options after testing positive or inconclusive for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genetic mutations? Purpose: The two objectives of this qualitative study are: (1) to explore ways in which women with positive and inconclusive breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2) mutation test results assign meaning, make interpretations, and respond to test results and recommendations for risk reduction and disease detection strategic interventions; and (2) to develop a grounded theory based on the perceptions, beliefs, and actions of these women. Theoretical/Scientific Framework: This qualitative study uses a grounded theory approach because grounded theory enables the experience of the participant to be heard in a more natural context. Glaser and Strauss (1967) introduced grounded theory as a methodological approach that provides the discovery of theory from qualitative data. Pragmatism and symbolic interactionism are the ontological bases of grounded theory, and the phenomena of concern are patterns and processes of social units (Parse, 2001). Grounded theory, because it is drawn from data, will provide insight, enhance understanding, and provide a meaningful guide to action for women making risk reduction and disease detection decisions due to positive and inconclusive BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation test results. Methods: This is a qualitative study using grounded theory methodology. Grounded theory provides the means for elucidating human decision behaviors and meanings in a social interactional context. Data is being collected using open-ended, semi-structured interviews, field notes, and memos. Sample: Theoretical or purposeful sampling will be performed to focus efforts on theoretically useful cases (e.g. those that test and/or extend theory). It is anticipated a sample of possibly 15 participants in each subgroup will be needed. Final sample size will be determined based on informational redundancy or saturation, the point at which no new information is forthcoming from the data-collection process. When saturation occurs, one additional interview will be conducted for verification purposes (Norwood, 2000, Sandelowski, 1995). Approximately 30 (15 in each group) English speaking females, ages 18 years and older, who test positive or inconclusive for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation will be sought. The population will be drawn from clients the PI has seen and tested in her clinic. Women are considered ineligible for this study if they have a diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer or a psychiatric or cognitive disorder, which preclude informed consent. Inconclusive test results are those in which the lab identifies a new Data Analysis: The constant comparative method of Grounded Theory will be used to simultaneously collect, code and analyze the transcribed interviews, field notes, and memos (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Three levels of coding will be used. Analysis of data will begin with open coding (Glaser, 1978), generating level I or “in vivo” codes. Level II coding will cluster codes by similarities and differences, compare codes across the data set and abstract phenomena observed, which will be labeled as categories. Theoretical coding will be used to examine the relationships among the categories, aided by schemes and diagrams to see how the categories fit (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Selective coding (level III) will focus on the core variable, further establishing the linkages between categories and moving the data to a more abstract level to explain the basic social process inherent in decision making by women with positive and inconclusive BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations test results (Glaser, 1990). A qualitative computer software program, NVIVO, will be used to help manage and analyze the data. Credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are four factors necessary to establish trustworthiness of the data (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). These factors will be addressed by the following Findings and Implications: This study is in progress.en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-27T12:19:15Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-27en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-27T12:19:15Z-
dc.conference.date2004en_US
dc.conference.name29th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congressen_US
dc.conference.hostOncology Nursing Societyen_US
dc.conference.locationAnaheim, California, USAen_US
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.