Literature DB >> 15382029

Feeling at risk: how women interpret their familial breast cancer risk.

Sandra van Dijk1, Wilma Otten, Christi J van Asperen, Danielle R M Timmermans, Aad Tibben, Moniek W Zoeteweij, Sylvia Silberg, Martijn H Breuning, Job Kievit.   

Abstract

Women's inaccuracy in recalling their breast cancer risk, even immediately after genetic counseling, has received much attention. However, scarce data are available about how women describe their risk in their own words and about what the risk information actually means to them. The present study aims to address interpretations questions and to assess whether these are congruent with the objective risk. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 123 women immediately after their (initial) counseling session. N-Vivo software was used to describe the data. The level of accuracy of recall depended strongly on the leniency of the criterion applied. For example, the level of verbal accuracy ranged from 25.8% (an exact match with the verbal label) to 98.4% (a more global awareness of having a high versus a low risk). In assessing the significance of personal risk information, we identified a wide variety of risk beliefs, and stress and coping responses. In general, women associated their risk with the medical options, for example, breast screening, that were available for them given their risk status. The results indicate that the accuracy of recall might be a limited outcome measure for the effectiveness of genetic counseling. First, this is because the level of accuracy of recall depends on how rigorously accuracy is defined. Secondly, because the probability of occurrence is just one of the elements comprising perceived risk, accuracy might rather apply to the distress, and to risk management behaviors that are elicited by the risk information. These beliefs that women hold about their risk status, and concomitant levels of stress should play a prominent role in genetic counseling. (c) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15382029     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  12 in total

Review 1.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Intuition versus cognition: a qualitative exploration of how women understand and manage their increased breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Louise Heiniger; Phyllis N Butow; Margaret Charles; Melanie A Price
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-03-28

3.  "It's not like judgment day": public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information.

Authors:  Erynn S Gordon; Georgia Griffin; Lisa Wawak; Hauchie Pang; Sarah E Gollust; Barbara A Bernhardt
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2011-12-17       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Breast cancer genetic counselling referrals: how comparable are the findings between the UK and the Netherlands?

Authors:  Akke Albada; Julie Werrett; Sandra Van Dulmen; Jozien M Bensing; Cyril Chapman; Margreet G E M Ausems; Alison Metcalfe
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-08-18

5.  Improved health perception after genetic counselling for women at high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer: construction of new questionnaires--an Italian exploratory study.

Authors:  Chiara Catania; Irene Feroce; Monica Barile; Aron Goldhirsch; Tommaso De Pas; Filippo de Braud; Sabrina Boselli; Laura Adamoli; Davide Radice; Alessandra Rossi; Gianluca Spitaleri; Cristina Noberasco; Bernardo Bonanni
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.553

6.  Colorectal cancer knowledge is not associated with screening compliance or intention.

Authors:  David S Weinberg; Suzanne Miller; Michelle Rodoletz; Brian Egleston; Linda Fleisher; Joanne Buzaglo; Eileen Keenan; Jaime Marks; Eric Bieber
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  How do women at increased, but unexplained, familial risk of breast cancer perceive and manage their risk? A qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Louise A Keogh; Belinda J McClaren; Carmel Apicella; John L Hopper
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 2.857

8.  Psychological distress in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients following microsatellite instability testing for Lynch syndrome on the pathologist's initiative.

Authors:  K M Landsbergen; J B Prins; H G Brunner; P van Duijvendijk; F M Nagengast; J H van Krieken; M Ligtenberg; N Hoogerbrugge
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Short-term psychological impact of the BRCA1/2 test result in women with breast cancer according to their perceived probability of genetic predisposition to cancer.

Authors:  A Brédart; J L Kop; A Depauw; O Caron; S Sultan; D Leblond; A Fajac; B Buecher; M Gauthier-Villars; C Noguès; C Flahault; D Stoppa-Lyonnet; S Dolbeault
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Counselees' Expressed Level of Understanding of the Risk Estimate and Surveillance Recommendation are Not Associated with Breast Cancer Surveillance Adherence.

Authors:  Akke Albada; Sandra van Dulmen; Henrietta Dijkstra; Ivette Wieffer; Arjen Witkamp; Margreet G E M Ausems
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.