Siwon Lee1, Amal Gedleh1, Jessica A Hill1, Seemi Qaiser1, Yvonne Umukunda1, Philip Odiyo1, Grace Kitonyi1, Helen Dimaras1. 1. Siwon Lee, Amal Gedleh, Seemi Qaiser, Yvonne Umukunda, and Helen Dimaras, University of Toronto; Jessica A. Hill and Helen Dimaras, The Hospital for Sick Children; Helen Dimaras, SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Grace Kitonyi, and Helen Dimaras, University of Nairobi; and Philip Odiyo, Faraja Cancer Support Trust, Nairobi, Kenya.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer ranks among the most common adult cancers in Kenya. Individuals with a family history of the disease are at increased risk. Mutations most commonly associated with breast cancer affect BRCA1 and BRCA2; mutations in several other genes may also confer breast cancer risk. Genetic testing and counseling can help patients understand their risk and assist clinicians in choosing therapies. We aimed to uncover what patients know, experience, and think with regard to breast cancer genetics in Kenya. METHODS: Participants included breast cancer survivors age > 18 years. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire before participating in focus group discussions to uncover knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes toward the genetics of breast cancer. Data were analyzed by inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted. Participants had rudimentary knowledge about genetics and cancer development, and although they understood breast cancer could be familial, many suspected environmental factors causing spontaneous disease. They reported limited experience with counseling about genetic risk, perceiving that their physicians were too busy to provide comprehensive information. Many indicated they promoted cancer screening among family to promote early diagnosis. Participants expressed a need for more comprehensive counseling and access to genetic testing, recognizing the added clarity it would bring to their families' risk of cancer. CONCLUSION: Improved communication from health care teams could clarify the risk of cancer for affected families. The introduction of affordable genetic testing and counseling for breast cancer in Kenya is welcomed by survivors.
INTRODUCTION:Breast cancer ranks among the most common adult cancers in Kenya. Individuals with a family history of the disease are at increased risk. Mutations most commonly associated with breast cancer affect BRCA1 and BRCA2; mutations in several other genes may also confer breast cancer risk. Genetic testing and counseling can help patients understand their risk and assist clinicians in choosing therapies. We aimed to uncover what patients know, experience, and think with regard to breast cancer genetics in Kenya. METHODS:Participants included breast cancer survivors age > 18 years. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire before participating in focus group discussions to uncover knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes toward the genetics of breast cancer. Data were analyzed by inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four focus groups were conducted. Participants had rudimentary knowledge about genetics and cancer development, and although they understood breast cancer could be familial, many suspected environmental factors causing spontaneous disease. They reported limited experience with counseling about genetic risk, perceiving that their physicians were too busy to provide comprehensive information. Many indicated they promoted cancer screening among family to promote early diagnosis. Participants expressed a need for more comprehensive counseling and access to genetic testing, recognizing the added clarity it would bring to their families' risk of cancer. CONCLUSION: Improved communication from health care teams could clarify the risk of cancer for affected families. The introduction of affordable genetic testing and counseling for breast cancer in Kenya is welcomed by survivors.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among Kenyan women.[1] African women are generally diagnosed with advanced
disease, which requires more intensive therapy and has a reduced chance of
survival.[2,3]Family history of breast cancer increases the risk of developing cancer[4]; knowledge of this risk can
facilitate early screening and better outcomes. Hereditary breast cancer is
associated with mutations in BRCA1[5-8] or
BRCA2[9];
mutations in other genes may also confer breast cancer risk.[10] Clinical genetic testing
identifies causative familial mutations. Genetic counseling helps patients
understand their risk. However, in low- and middle-income countries, cancer genetic
services are often unavailable or inaccessible because of financial and other
barriers. Genetic counseling is also limited, because genetic counselors are rare
and physicians lack training in this respect.New technologies have made genetic testing a reality in resource-limited
settings.[11,12] There is a need for concomitant
enhancement of genetic counseling. It is equally important to understand what cancer
survivors know about the genetics of their disease and uncover their experience with
and perspectives on cancer genetics, because use of genetic services is dependent on
social factors.[13] In this respect,
we conducted focus groups with Kenyan breast cancer survivors to gain insight into
their knowledge, attitudes, and experiences regarding genetics and heritable
cancer.
METHODS
Study Design
This qualitative, cross-sectional study aimed to uncover Kenyan breast cancer
survivors’ knowledge, experiences, and attitudes regarding breast cancer
genetics. The study was approved by the University of Nairobi Ethics and
Research Committee.
Participant Recruitment
Participants were recruited from monthly breast cancer support groups hosted by
Faraja Cancer Support Trust, a cancer support organization. Interested
participants were asked to connect with the study team to enroll in the
study.Kenyan female breast cancer survivors age > 18 years who could communicate in
either English or Swahili were eligible. A breast cancer survivor was defined as
an individual who had received a breast cancer diagnosis and undergone treatment
in Kenya. All participants provided written informed consent.
Data Collection
Participants completed a brief questionnaire, which asked for basic demographic
information and details about their diagnosis (Tables 1 and 2). Focus groups
took place at Faraja Cancer Support Trust. Discussions were moderated in English
and translated into Swahili in real time as necessary. Discussions lasted 60 to
90 minutes and were audio recorded. The interview guide asked participants to
comment on: their understanding of breast cancer and its causes, genetics, and
inheritance; primary source(s) of information; primary sources of psychosocial
support; understanding of the long-term implication(s) of breast cancer; and
challenges faced during their experience.
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Table 2
Participant Breast Cancer Information
Participant DemographicsParticipantBreast Cancer Information
Data Analysis
Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim in English. Participants were
deidentified using alphanumeric codes (eg, J1). Data were managed using NVivo 11
software (QSR International, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). Two researchers
coded the transcripts independently, using a codebook generated together.
Discrepancies were settled by a third researcher. Data were analyzed using
inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS
Participant Demographics
Four focus groups with 21 female breast cancer survivors were conducted. Most
participants were between the ages of 41 and 55 years (43%), identified Swahili
(86%) or English (67%) as a primary language, lived in a city (52%), and had
Kikuyu ethnicity (71%). Additional demographic information is listed in Table 1.Most participants reported being the only person in their family diagnosed with
breast cancer (62%). Most were diagnosed in the last 1 to 5 years (71%). One
participant reported having undergone genetic testing. When asked if breast
cancer was heritable in their family, participants responded either no (48%) or
unknown (48%; Table 2). A summary of the
themes and subthemes of the study, detailed in the following section, is
provided in Table 3.
Table 3
Summary of Themes and Subthemes
Summary of Themes and Subthemes
Knowledge of Breast Cancer Genetics
Limited understanding of genetics and cancer.
Rudimentary knowledge of cancer development.
Participants generally described breast cancer as the proliferation of
abnormal cells:“I would define the word cancer as I have gone through. Normal
cells in the body that turn so they become abnormal and they start
multiplying. They multiply uncontrollably. Something like
that.” —J3One participant initially thought cancer was a communicable disease
because people in her family had different types of cancer:“I was very sure much worried because my husband died in 1991
because he had a stomach cancer and my sister died in 1996, she had
a cervical cancer. Then I thought one of them gave me the
cancer.” —M7
Genetics is understood as relating to inheritance.
Most participants understood terms genetics or inheritance as relating to
familial traits passed on from generation to generation:“I think the genetic is something to do with genes, the
makeup, what makes up the genes that make a person. And when you
have now the gene that is having the cancerous, makeup, is the one
that makes you a potential for cancer. Now you get it because of
… you inherited it from the parents. One of your parents
could be carrying the gene and then pass it on to you. And then you
can either have it because you get it from both the parents, you can
get it from one of them. Or you can maybe lucky and you don’t
get it but you still carry it to one of your child or something like
that.” —J6However, some expressed more familiarity with the term inheritance than
with gene or genetic:“I don’t know genetic but inheritance. You inherit from
your family. It runs in the family. That’s the meaning of the
word inheritance. But I don’t know, I’m not very clear
about genetic.” —J5
Breast cancer is understood both as an inherited and spontaneous
disorder.
Positive family history.
When family history was present, participants concluded that the cancer
could have been inherited; however, they were not certain:“I think as for me my mom had breast cancer. And she died when
she was just 33 years from breast cancer. When they took the test
for my disease, they said it was triple negative, it was not caused
by hormones. The doctor say that it could be inherited but I have
not done any test to conclude that. Yeah, so I thought that maybe I
could have got the gene from my mother.” —M2
Lifestyle factors.
Participants often pinpointed specific lifestyle factors that could cause
cancer:“Then of course the regular things that we are told all the
time. Smoking, eating the wrong food, not exercising, those things,
combination of factors, including stress.” —J4
Family planning.
Family planning methods were identified as possible cancer causes. The
absence of family history sometimes made it easier to believe birth
control may have been the cause:“Her mom doesn’t have it and she has never heard of
breast cancer before. So that’s why she thought family
planning might be the cause.” —J22Birth control as a cause of breast cancer development was perceived to be
supported by physicians:“In her case, she thought it was family planning. She
had—I think a patch?—that she used to put on her hand,
and she got a lump. And she had been using the family planning for
three years. So when she went to see the doctor, the first thing he
said was to remove the patch.” —J21
Experience With Breast Cancer Genetics
Limited experience with genetic counseling.
Communication from health care team focuses on establishing family
history.
Some participants were given some form of risk counseling for family
members:“[The doctor] told me if I have a daughter, since it is
running in the family, and my mother died at 64, I got mine, I was
diagnosed at 43. So he told me that my daughter should start going
for breast cancer examinations at 23. Yeah, half the age.”
—J6Some participants reported not having a discussion on genetics but being
interviewed about their family history:“No, there wasn’t any discussion on that [genetics].
But there is a form that they were filling whereby they were asking
you if your dad had cancer or your mom had breast cancer.”
—J21
Health care team is perceived to be too busy to provide comprehensive
information.
Participants believed that health care professionals were too busy to
communicate to their families about familial risks of breast cancer:“They [the doctors] actually don’t have time. Because
we would like them to at least spend some time to call our family,
maybe our spouse or our children and then maybe they are in a better
position to explain to them and then us, ourselves.”
—M2An underlying current of distrust of medical professionals was evident in
most focus groups. The business of physicians was often explained as
resulting from a perceived financial incentive:“They don’t want to take their time to explain to you
because they are expecting the next patient. Because as many patient
gets in that is how they are counting their pocket.”
—J5
Survivors promote breast cancer screening.
Participants did not explicitly speak about increased risk of cancer to
family members. However, they promoted screening to their family:“So like in my family, I’ve sensitized the people
around me, my sisters and my brothers. I’ve encouraged my
sisters to be going for mammograms and my mom.”
—J1One participant encouraged her daughter to get a mammogram but recognized
the financial barrier to accessing the service:“I won’t like her to pass through what I passed
through…. Because mammogram, she had when she had money. She
should go for checkup. So the moment she gets money, I’m
encouraging her to go for checkup.” —J14Participants also spoke about how female family members held the worry
that they would also be affected:“But I remember the first month, my daughter who is 20 now.
She was very devastated. She used to Google and find out about
breast cancer. She would always touch her breasts to find out if she
had a lump.” —J14
Limited experience with genetic testing.
Most participants reported having no experience with genetic testing. One
individual had accessed genetic testing and counseling in India. The
experience was described as having provided clarity:“For my case, I’m the first one to have cancer in my
family, my extended family, from whichever side. I have done a genetic
test and it was negative. So I’m happy at least it does not go
down to my children.” —J13
Attitudes on Breast Cancer Genetics
Need for more information.
Many expressed a need to better understand breast cancer to develop further
competency in informing family members:“At that point, you don’t even know what breast cancer is.
So you just tell them it is breast cancer but they don’t know
what it is and you yourself don’t know what it is.”
—J13
Need for genetic testing.
One participant spoke of the value of genetic testing but stressed that it is
inaccessible in Kenya because of high costs:“When [my sister] learned that I have breast cancer, she lives in
the US, she went for that test, the genetic test. She did. Which came
out negative. She said it was expensive but it was necessary for her to
alleviate the fear and know that. So for me, I think it’s
something that people should learn, maybe to embrace. Because like you
say, knowledge is power. Because when you know, at least it can be
reached by each and everybody, because here in Kenya we want these
things to happen but like what she said, sometimes you have nothing. You
don’t have any coins.” —J6Some saw value in providing affordable genetic testing in the future:“No one ever told me to go for a gene test or…. So I have a
daughter. I would not like her to go through what I’ve gone
through that by the time they came to diagnose [the cancer] in me, the
cancer was at third stage. They could have seen it early, at an early
stage so I think if they gave us some affordable gene test, we will take
our children, our girlchild, and from there they will tell us the way
forward.” —M2
DISCUSSION
The recent focus on and efforts to build capacity in African genomic science promises
to revolutionize care for genomic disorders like cancer.[11,12] This
will require strengthening of genetic counseling services; therefore, we sought to
uncover how breast cancer survivors in Kenya understand, experience, and
conceptualize the underlying genetics of their disease. We found that survivors
generally understood that breast cancer could be heritable but did not often fully
comprehend how this risk translated to themselves or their family members. The
demographic survey revealed that although seven participants knew of family members
who also had breast cancer, they reported that breast cancer was not heritable, or
they did not know if it was heritable in their case. Again, later in discussions,
participants cited positive family history but used terms such as 'maybe' and 'could
be' when talking about whether they had inherited the trait; one participant
initially thought her cancer was communicable. It is important for health care
practitioners to be aware of this misunderstanding so that they can dispel
confusion. Participants who indicated they had triple-negative breast cancer
(sometimes described as nonhormonal) mentioned it during the discussion of
inheritance. Triple-negative breast cancer does not express receptors for estrogen,
progesterone, or humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu, and can be suggestive
of heritable breast cancer, especially in women diagnosed at age < 60
years.[14] International
guidelines recommend that individuals with triple-negative breast cancer be referred
for genetic testing or counseling. Triple-negative breast cancer may have a higher
incidence in Africa[15]; it is
possible that physicians are aware of this risk and discuss the possibility of
hereditary disease more comprehensively with these patients.Participants offered much discussion on environmental or lifestyle factors that are
known to increase risk of breast cancer. Survivors often indicated they perceived
use of birth control as a risk factor in breast cancer development. Despite this
widespread perception, only one study has shown a small increased risk of breast
cancer while using contraceptives, which diminishes over time.[16] More importantly, another study
showed robust evidence that contraceptive use confers no increased risk of breast
cancer to the general population.[17] Only for BRCA1 mutation carriers do oral
contraceptives incur this increased risk[18]; however, in Kenya, where genetic testing is not performed
routinely, none of the participants in our study would have known if they were
BRCA1 carriers. It is possible that because physicians do not
know the mutation status of the patient they are counseling, they may speculate that
their patient is a mutation carrier and counsel conservatively. Taken together, the
abundance of misinformation about breast cancer illustrates a need for genetic
testing and counseling to comprehensively and accurately outline risks to facilitate
informed decision making on the part of patients.Study participants reported limited experience with genetic counseling. Many recalled
being asked for detailed family history by their physicians but often perceived that
health care professionals were too busy to provide them with quality communication
and were mainly interested in generating revenue. The underlying mistrust of
physicians prevalent in our discussions is consistent with prior research suggesting
that commercialization of medicine significantly weakens patient-physician
trust.[19] In China,
commercialization of medicine, along with high patient expectations and inadequate
training of physicians in patient communication, is a contributor to
patient-physician mistrust, often with violent consequences.[20,21] In Kenya, further research may be necessary to delineate
how medical mistrust may affect uptake and use of genetic services.Incorporating genetic counseling into standard of care could help improve patient
understanding and strengthen the patient-physician relationship. However, there may
be an unrealistic patient expectation that physicians have a comprehensive
understanding of genetic testing and its implications. In reality, studies from
around the world consistently have shown that physicians perceive themselves to be
ill versed in clinical genetics or would prefer assistance in sharing results with
patients,[22-24] and even medical oncologists score
low on knowledge tests of cancer genomics.[25] Genetic counselors are primed to take this role[26]; however, in Kenya, where genetic
counselors do not exist, alternative models of counseling may need to be developed
and tested.[27] Disease-based
genetic education programs for physicians may be one way to build capacity in this
area.[28]Genetic testing could also improve knowledge of and clarify communication from the
health care team. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that all women
should be tested for breast cancer–predisposing mutations, regardless of
presence or absence of family history.[29,30] Some might argue
that a positive genetic test might cause undue stress; however, evidence indicates
that genetic testing and appropriate counseling does not increase distress over
time.[31-33] A systematic review on uptake of genetic services
finds that 59% of women with breast cancer choose to undergo genetic
testing.[34] Our
participants expressed a desire for access to genetic services, rationalizing that
it could help relatives identify their risk of breast cancer. Hereditary breast
cancer is also associated with increased risk of other cancers (eg,
ovarian),[10] for which
genetic testing would help deduce the risk; however, no participant discussed this
additional benefit.The one participant who had received genetic testing and counseling had traveled to
India for treatment, presumably having the financial means to do so. Financial
barriers are known to prevent uptake of genetic services,[35,36] and in
our study, this was identified as a recognized challenge to overcome. In future,
genetic testing could be covered by the national health insurance fund, as one way
to provide affordable service to patients. Physician recommendation is another
predictor of uptake,[35,37] so it is important to educate
physicians on this opportunity as it develops in Kenya. It is possible to develop
breast cancer genetic services in sub-Saharan Africa.[38-40] However,
given the distrust of the medical community uncovered by our study, the value of
genetic testing must be clearly articulated to patients to avoid further damaging
patient-physician relations.The main limitation of this study is that it represents perspectives from survivors
from a relatively uniform population that primarily identified as urban, Kikuyu, and
having completed secondary school or higher. Additional studies in different
geographic areas and demographic groups may yield more diverse perspectives.In conclusion, there is a need for improved education among Kenyan breast cancer
survivors about genetics. With better understanding of genetics through tailored
education in support groups, patient-oriented genetic testing and counseling could
be introduced in Kenya in the near future.
Authors: Steven A Narod; Marie-Pierre Dubé; Jan Klijn; Jan Lubinski; Henry T Lynch; Parviz Ghadirian; Diane Provencher; Ketil Heimdal; Pal Moller; Mark Robson; Kenneth Offit; Claudine Isaacs; Barbara Weber; Eitan Friedman; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Gad Rennert; Barbara Pasini; Theresa Wagner; Mary Daly; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Peter Ainsworth; Hakan Olsson; Gareth Evans; Michael Osborne; Fergus Couch; William D Foulkes; Ellen Warner; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Olufunmilayo Olopade; Nadine Tung; Howard M Saal; Jeffrey Weitzel; Sofia Merajver; Marion Gauthier-Villars; Helena Jernstrom; Ping Sun; Jean-Sebastien Brunet Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-12-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Polly A Marchbanks; Jill A McDonald; Hoyt G Wilson; Suzanne G Folger; Michele G Mandel; Janet R Daling; Leslie Bernstein; Kathleen E Malone; Giske Ursin; Brian L Strom; Sandra A Norman; Phyllis A Wingo; Ronald T Burkman; Jesse A Berlin; Michael S Simon; Robert Spirtas; Linda K Weiss Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Luís Carlos Lopes-Júnior; Paulo Marcondes Carvalho Júnior; Victor Evangelista de Faria Ferraz; Lucila Castanheira Nascimento; Marcia Van Riper; Milena Flória-Santos Journal: Nurs Health Sci Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 1.857
Authors: Susan T Vadaparampil; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Julie Dutil; Marieva Puig; Teri L Malo; Jessica McIntyre; Rossybelle Perales; Euna M August; Zuheily Closser Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2011-07-12
Authors: Li Qun He; Lucy Njambi; Joseph M Nyamori; Emmanuel M Nyenze; Kahaki Kimani; Ibrahim Matende; Hilary Rono; Victor Njom; James Bett; Mukiri Mukuria; Muchai Gachago; Helen Roberts; Helen Dimaras Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-07-19 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Charles Rotimi; Akin Abayomi; Alash'le Abimiku; Victoria May Adabayeri; Clement Adebamowo; Ezekiel Adebiyi; Adebowale D Ademola; Adebowale Adeyemo; Dwomoa Adu; Dissou Affolabi; Godfred Agongo; Samuel Ajayi; Sally Akarolo-Anthony; Rufus Akinyemi; Albert Akpalu; Marianne Alberts; Orlando Alonso Betancourt; Ahmed Mansour Alzohairy; Gobena Ameni; Olukemi Amodu; Gabriel Anabwani; Kristian Andersen; Fatiu Arogundade; Oyedunni Arulogun; Danny Asogun; Rasheed Bakare; Naby Balde; Mary Lynn Baniecki; Christine Beiswanger; Alia Benkahla; Lara Bethke; Micheal Boehnke; Vincent Boima; James Brandful; Andrew I Brooks; Frank C Brosius; Chester Brown; Bruno Bucheton; David T Burke; Barrington G Burnett; Stacy Carrington-Lawrence; Nadia Carstens; John Chisi; Alan Christoffels; Richard Cooper; Heather Cordell; Nigel Crowther; Talishiea Croxton; Jantina de Vries; Leslie Derr; Peter Donkor; Seydou Doumbia; Audrey Duncanson; Ivy Ekem; Ahmed El Sayed; Mark E Engel; John C K Enyaru; Dean Everett; Faisal M Fadlelmola; Eyitayo Fakunle; Kenneth H Fischbeck; Anne Fischer; Onikepe Folarin; Junaid Gamieldien; Robert F Garry; Simani Gaseitsiwe; Rasheed Gbadegesin; Anita Ghansah; Maria Giovanni; Parham Goesbeck; F Xavier Gomez-Olive; Donald S Grant; Ravnit Grewal; Mark Guyer; Neil A Hanchard; Christian T Happi; Scott Hazelhurst; Branwen J Hennig; Christiane Hertz-; Winston Hide; Friedhelm Hilderbrandt; Christopher Hugo-Hamman; Muntaser E Ibrahim; Regina James; Yasmina Jaufeerally-Fakim; Carolyn Jenkins; Ute Jentsch; Pan-Pan Jiang; Moses Joloba; Victor Jongeneel; Fourie Joubert; Mukthar Kader; Kathleen Kahn; Pontiano Kaleebu; Saidi H Kapiga; Samar Kamal Kassim; Ishmael Kasvosve; Jonathan Kayondo; Bernard Keavney; Adeodata Kekitiinwa; Sheik Humarr Khan; Paul Kimmel; Mary-Claire King; Robert Kleta; Mathurin Koffi; Jeffrey Kopp; Matthias Kretzler; Judit Kumuthini; Samuel Kyobe; Catherine Kyobutungi; Daniel T Lackland; Karen A Lacourciere; Guida Landouré; Rita Lawlor; Thomas Lehner; Maia Lesosky; Naomi Levitt; Katherine Littler; Zane Lombard; Jeanne F Loring; Sylvester Lyantagaye; Annette Macleod; Ebony B Madden; Chengetai R Mahomva; Julie Makani; Manmak Mamven; Marape Marape; Graeme Mardon; Patricia Marshall; Darren P Martin; Daniel Masiga; Robin Mason; Michael Mate-Kole; Enock Matovu; Mary Mayige; Bongani M Mayosi; Jean Claude Mbanya; Sheryl A McCurdy; Mark I McCarthy; Helen McIlleron; S O Mc'Ligeyo; Corrine Merle; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Charles Mondo; John V Moran; Ayesha Motala; Marva Moxey-Mims; Wata Sununguko Mpoloka; Chisomo L Msefula; Thuli Mthiyane; Nicola Mulder; Gebregziab her Mulugeta; Dieuodonne Mumba; John Musuku; Mo Nagdee; Oyekanmi Nash; Daouda Ndiaye; Anh Quynh Nguyen; Mark Nicol; Oathokwa Nkomazana; Shane Norris; Betty Nsangi; Alexander Nyarko; Moffat Nyirenda; Eileen Obe; Reginald Obiakor; Abraham Oduro; Solomon F Ofori-Acquah; Okechukwu Ogah; Stephen Ogendo; Kwaku Ohene-Frempong; Akinlolu Ojo; Timothy Olanrewaju; John Oli; Charlotte Osafo; Odile Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer; Bruce Ovbiagele; Andrew Owen; Mayowa Ojo Owolabi; Lukman Owolabi; Ellis Owusu-Dabo; Guillaume Pare; Rulan Parekh; Hugh G Patterton; Margaret B Penno; Jane Peterson; Rembert Pieper; Jacob Plange-Rhule; Martin Pollak; Julia Puzak; Rajkumar S Ramesar; Michele Ramsay; Rebekah Rasooly; Shiksha Reddy; Pardis C Sabeti; Kwamena Sagoe; Tunde Salako; Oumar Samassékou; Manjinder S Sandhu; Osman Sankoh; Fred Stephen Sarfo; Marie Sarr; Gasnat Shaboodien; Issa Sidibe; Gustave Simo; Martin Simuunza; Liam Smeeth; Eugene Sobngwi; Himla Soodyall; Hermann Sorgho; Oumou Sow Bah; Sudha Srinivasan; Dan J Stein; Ezra S Susser; Carmen Swanepoel; Godfred Tangwa; Andrew Tareila; Ozlem Tastan Bishop; Bamidele Tayo; Nicki Tiffin; Halidou Tinto; Ekaete Tobin; Stephen Meir Tollman; Mahamadou Traoré; Marsha J Treadwell; Jennifer Troyer; Masego Tsimako-Johnstone; Vincent Tukei; Ifeoma Ulasi; Nzovu Ulenga; Beverley van Rooyen; Ablo Prudence Wachinou; Salina P Waddy; Alisha Wade; Misaki Wayengera; James Whitworth; Louise Wideroff; Cheryl A Winkler; Sarah Winnicki; Ambroise Wonkam; Mengistu Yewondwos; Tadase sen; Nathan Yozwiak; Heather Zar Journal: Science Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Marieke C J Dekker; Rose Chengo; Happiness H Kumburu; Erik-Jan Kamsteeg; Ben C Hamel Journal: Tremor Other Hyperkinet Mov (N Y) Date: 2020-01-10