Ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal gynaecological malignancy. The search for a widely affordable and accessible screening strategy to reduce mortality from OC is still ongoing. This coupled with the late-stage presentation and poor prognosis harbours significant health-economic implications. OC is also the most heritable of all cancers, with an estimated 25% of cases having a hereditary predisposition. Advancements in technology have detected multiple mutations, with the majority affecting the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes. Women with BRCA mutations are at a significantly increased lifetime risk of developing OC, often presenting with a high-grade serous pathology, which is associated with higher mortality due to its aggressive characteristic. Therefore, a targeted, cost-effective approach to prevention is paramount to improve clinical outcomes and mortality. Current guidelines offer multiple preventive strategies for individuals with hereditary OC (HOC), including genetic counselling to identify the high-risk women and risk-reducing interventions (RRI), such as surgical management or chemoprophylaxis through contraceptive medications. Evidence for sporadic OC is abundant as compared to the existing dearth in the hereditary subgroup. Hence, our review article narrates an overview of HOC and explores the RRI developed over the years. It attempts to compare the cost effectiveness of these strategies with women of the general population in order to answer the crucial question: what is the most prudent clinically and economically effective strategy for prevention amongst high-risk women?

Purpose: Studies of mental illness stigma reduction interventions have been criticised for failing to evaluate behavioural outcomes and mechanisms of action. This project evaluates training for medical students entitled ‘Responding to Experienced and Anticipated Discrimination’ (READ), developed to focus on skills in addition to attitudes and knowledge. We aimed to (i) evaluate the effectiveness of READ with respect to knowledge, attitudes, and clinical communication skills in responding to mental illness-related discrimination, and (ii) investigate whether its potential effectiveness was mediated via empathy or/and intergroup anxiety. Methods: This is an international multisite non-randomised pre- vs post-controlled study. Eligible medical students were currently undertaking their rotational training in psychiatry. Thirteen sites across ten countries (n = 570) were included in the final analysis. Results: READ was associated with positive changes in knowledge (mean difference 1.35; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.82), attitudes (mean difference − 2.50; 95% CI − 3.54 to − 1.46), skills (odds ratio 2.98; 95% CI 1.90 to 4.67), and simulated patient perceived empathy (mean difference 3.05; 95% CI 1.90 to 4.21). The associations of READ with knowledge, attitudes, and communication skills but not with simulated patient perceived empathy were partly mediated through student reported empathy and intergroup anxiety. Conclusion: This is the first study to identify mediating effects of reduced intergroup anxiety and increased empathy in an evaluation of anti-stigma training that includes behavioural measures in the form of communication skills and perceived empathy. It shows the importance of both mediators for all of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and hence of targeting both in future interventions.