Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Outcomes of support groups for carriers of BRCA 1/2 pathogenic variants and their relatives: a systematic review


People tested positive for BRCA1/2 face an increased risk of cancer; to help them cope with the genetic information received, support to BRCA1/2 families should be continued after testing. Nonetheless how such support should be provided has not been established yet. As a potentially valuable option is represented by support groups, the aim of this systematic review was to assess studies exploring the outcomes of support groups for BRCA1/2 carriers. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42021238416). Peer-reviewed papers published between January 1995 and February 2021 were searched for, using four databases. Among 1586 records identified, 34 papers were reviewed in full-text and eleven were included in the qualitative synthesis of the results. Three themes emerged as major focuses of support groups: risk management decisions, family dynamics and risk communication, and psychosocial functioning. Our findings show that support groups proved helpful in supporting women’s decision-making on risk-reducing options. Moreover, during those interventions, BRCA1/2 carriers had the opportunity to share thoughts and feelings, and felt that mutual support through interacting with other mutation carriers help them release the emotional pressure. However, no significant impact was reported in improving family communication. Overall, a high level of satisfaction and perceived helpfulness was reported for support group. The findings suggest that support groups represent a valuable tool for improving BRCA1/2 families care.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: PRISMA flowchart of study selection.

Data availability

Data on subsequent steps of literature search and selection are available upon request.


  1. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Di Prospero LS, Seminsky M, Honeyford J, Doan B, Franssen E, Meschino W, et al. Psychosocial issues following a positive result of genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: findings from a focus group and a needs-assessment survey. CMAJ. 2001;164:1005–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lombardi L, Bramanti SM, Babore A, Stuppia L, Trumello C, Antonucci I, et al. Psychological aspects, risk and protective factors related to BRCA genetic testing: a review of the literature. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:3647–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Decruyenaere M, Denayer L, Legius E. Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet. 2003;116A:11–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Di Pietro ML, Zaçe D, Orfino A, Di Raimo FR, Poscia A, de Matteis E, et al. Intrafamilial communication of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic information in Italian women: towards a personalised approach. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;29:250–61.

  6. den Heijer M, Seynaeve C, Vanheusden K, Duivenvoorden HJ, Bartels CCM, Menke-Pluymers MBE, et al. Psychological distress in women at risk for hereditary breast cancer: the role of family communication and perceived social support. Psychooncology. 2011;20:1317–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patenaude AF, Tung N, Ryan PD, Ellisen LW, Hewitt L, Schneider KA, et al. Young adult daughters of BRCA1/2 positive mothers: what do they know about hereditary cancer and how much do they worry? Psychooncology. 2013;22:2024–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Resta R, Biesecker BB, Bennett RL, Blum S, Estabrooks Hahn S, Strecker MN, et al. A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. J Genet Couns. 2006;15:77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Godino L, Turchetti D, Jackson L, Hennessy C, Skirton H. Impact of presymptomatic genetic testing on young adults: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:496–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Godino L, Jackson L, Turchetti D, Hennessy C, Skirton H. Decision making and experiences of young adults undergoing presymptomatic genetic testing for familial cancer: a longitudinal grounded theory study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26:44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Godino L, Turchetti D, Jackson L, Hennessy C, Skirton H. Presymptomatic genetic testing for hereditary cancer in young adults: a survey of young adults and parents. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019;27:291–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Metcalfe KA, Liede A, Hoodfar E, Scott A, Foulkes WD, Narod SA. An evaluation of needs of female BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers undergoing genetic counselling. J Med Genet. 2000;37:866–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Warner NZ, Matthews S, Groarke A, McSharry J. A systematic review of psycho‐social interventions for individuals with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. J Genet Couns. 2021;00:jgc4.1436.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schmall V. What makes a support group good? It doesn’t just happen. Generations 1984;9:64–7.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mason E, Clare L, Pistrang N. Processes and experiences of mutual support in professionally-led support groups for people with early-stage dementia. Dementia. 2016;4:87–112.

  16. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev Esp Nutr Hum Diet. 2016;20:148–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kmet LM, Lee RC, Cook L. AHFMR Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from avariety of fields. HTA Initiat. 2004;13:1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Speice J, McDaniel SH, Rowley PT, Loader S. Family issues in a psychoeducation group for women with a BRCA mutation. Clin Genet. 2002;62:121–7.

  19. Clarke S, Butler K, Esplen MJ. The phases of disclosing BRCA1/2 genetic information to offspring. Psychooncology. 2008;17:797–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Myklebust M, Gjengedal E, Strømsvik N. Experience of Norwegian female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-carrying participants in educational support groups: a qualitative study. J Genet Couns. 2016;25:1198–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mendes Á, Chiquelho R, Santos TA, Sousa L. Family matters: examining a multi-family group intervention for women with BRCA mutations in the scope of genetic counselling. J Community Genet. 2010;1:161–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Esplen MJ, Hunter J, Leszcz M, Warner E, Narod S, Metcalfe K, et al. A multicenter study of supportive-expressive group therapy for women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. Cancer. 2004;101:2327–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McKinnon W, Naud S, Ashikaga T, Colletti R, Wood M. Results of an intervention for individuals and families with BRCA mutations: a model for providing medical updates and psychosocial support following genetic testing. J Genet Couns. 2007;16:433–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Landsbergen KM, Brunner EG, Manders P, Hoogerbrugge N, Prins JB. Educational-support groups for BRCA mutation carriers satisfy need for information but do not affect emotional distress. Genet Couns. 2010b;21:423–37.

  25. Bober SL, Recklitis CJ, Bakan J, Garber JE, Patenaude AF. Addressing sexual dysfunction after risk-reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy: effects of a brief, psychosexual intervention. J Sex Med. 2015;12:189–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kwiatkowski F, Gay-Bellile M, Dessenne P, Laquet C, Boussion V, Béguinot M, et al. BRACAVENIR: An observational study of expectations and coping in young women with high hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2019;17:7.

  27. Listøl W, Høberg-Vetti H, Eide GE, Bjorvatn C Anxiety and depression symptoms among women attending group-based patient education courses for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2017;15:2.

  28. Landsbergen KM, Prins JB, Kamm YJL, Brunner HG, Hoogerbrugge N. Female BRCA mutation carriers with a preference for prophylactic mastectomy are more likely to participate an educational-support group and to proceed with the preferred intervention within 2 years. Fam Cancer. 2010a;9:213–20.

  29. MacDonald DJ, Sarna L, Weitzel JN, Ferrell B. Women’s perceptions of the personal and family impact of genetic cancer risk assessment: focus group findings. J Genet Couns. 2010;19:148–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Visser A, Prins JB, Hoogerbrugge N, Van Laarhoven HWM. Group medical visits in the follow-up of women with a BRCA mutation: design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Womens Health. 2011;11:39.

  31. Segerer R, Peschel C, Kämmerer U, Häussler S, Wöckel A, Segerer S. Factors impacting on decision-making towards prophylactic surgeries in BRCA mutation carriers and women with familial predisposition. Breast Care (Basel). 2020;15:253–9.

  32. Alonzo MD’, Piva E, Pecchio S, Liberale V, Modaffari P, Ponzone R, et al. Satisfaction and impact on quality of life of clinical and instrumental surveillance and prophylactic surgery in BRCA-mutation carriers. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:e1361–6

  33. Lodder LN, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Klijn JGM, Seynaeve C, et al. One year follow-up of women opting for presymptomatic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2: Emotional impact of the test outcome and decisions on risk management (Surveillance or prophylactic surgery). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;73:97–112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Patenaude AF, Orozco S, Li X, Kaelin CM, Gadd M, Matory Y, et al. Support needs and acceptability of psychological and peer consultation: Attitudes of 108 women who had undergone or were considering prophylactic mastectomy. Psychooncology. 2008;17:831–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Antonovsky A. Unraveling the mystery of health: how people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass; 1987.

  36. Kenen R, Ardern-Jones A, Eeles R. “Social separation” among women under 40 years of age diagnosed with breast cancer and carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Genet Couns. 2006;15:149–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sobel SK, Cowan DB. Impact of genetic testing for Huntington disease on the family system. Am J Med Genet. 2000;90:49–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sobel S, Cowan CB. Ambiguous loss and disenfranchised grief: the impact of DNA predictive testing on the family as a system. Fam Process. 2003;42:47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wagner Costalas J, Itzen M, Malick J, Babb JS, Bove B, Godwin AK, et al. Communication of BRCA1 and BRCA2 results to at-risk relatives: a cancer risk assessment program’s experience. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2003;119C:11–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cheung EL, Olson AD, Yu TM, Han PZ, Beattie MS. Communication of BRCA results and family testing in 1,103 high-risk women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19:2211–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Forrest K, Simpson SA, Wilson BJ, van Teijlingen ER, McKee L, Haites N, et al. To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clin Genet. 2003;64:317–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lafrenière D, Bouchard K, Godard B, Simard J, Dorval M. Family communication following BRCA1/2 genetic testing: A close look at the process. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:323–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Metcalfe A, Coad J, Plumridge GM, Gill P, Farndon P. Family communication between children and their parents about inherited genetic conditions: a meta-synthesis of the research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2008;16:1193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bradbury AR, Dignam JJ, Ibe CN, Auh SL, Hlubocky FJ, Cummings SA, et al. How often do BRCA mutation carriers tell their young children of the family’s risk for cancer? A study of parental disclosure of BRCA mutations to minors and young adults. J Clin Oncol J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3705–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rew L, Mackert M, Bonevac D. A systematic review of literature about the genetic testing of adolescents. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2009;14:284–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Werner-Lin A, Ratner R, Hoskins LM, Lieber C. A survey of genetic counselors about the needs of 18-25 year olds from families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. J Genet Couns. 2015;24:78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gaff CL, Lynch E, Spencer L. Predictive testing of eighteen year olds: counseling challenges. J Genet Couns. 2006;15:245–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Langeland E, Wahl AK. The impact of social support on mental health service users’ sense of coherence: a longitudinal panel survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:830–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Machisa MT, Christofides N, Jewkes R. Social support factors associated with psychological resilience among women survivors of intimate partner violence in Gauteng, South Africa. Glob Health Action. 2018;11(sup3):491114

  50. Ahuja K, Hagerty M, Townsend J. Social support, depression, and life stress: a meta-analytic path analysis. Celebr Learn. 2018:

  51. Peterkin A. Self-help movement experiencing rapid growth in Canada. CMAJ. 1993;148;817–8.

  52. Corines MJ, Hamilton JG, Glogowski E, Anrig CA, Goldberg R, Niehaus K, et al. Educational and psychosocial support needs in lynch syndrome: implementation and assessment of an educational workshop and support group. J Genet Couns. 2017;26:232–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


BB was supported by a grant awarded by Italian Ministry of Health (RF-2011-02352088).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All the authors conceived the study. LG and DT designed the analytical plan and the bias assessment approach. BB and LG performed the literature search and draughted the manuscript. LG supervised the study. DT revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Turchetti.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Approval by an Ethical Board was not required as this is a systematic review of published literature. However, it was registered in the “International Prospective Register of Systematic Review” (PROSPERO) in 2021 (CRD42021238416; Available from:

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bertonazzi, B., Turchetti, D. & Godino, L. Outcomes of support groups for carriers of BRCA 1/2 pathogenic variants and their relatives: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 30, 398–405 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links