Literature DB >> 15386791

Using the common sense model to understand perceived cancer risk in individuals testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Kimberly Kelly1, Howard Leventhal, Michael Andrykowski, Deborah Toppmeyer, Judy Much, James Dermody, Monica Marvin, Jill Baran, Marvin Schwalb.   

Abstract

The common sense model posits that individuals' understanding of illness is based upon somatic symptoms and life experiences and thus may differ significantly from the biomedical view of illness. The current study used the common sense model to understand cancer risk perceptions in 99 individuals testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Specifically, we examined change from post-counseling to post-result in (1) absolute risk (risk of developing cancer in one's lifetime) and (2) comparative risk (risk relative to the general population). Results indicated that absolute risk showed a trend such that those with a personal history of cancer receiving uninformative negative results reported decreased absolute risk. Further, individuals receiving uninformative negative results reported decreased comparative risk. Those with no personal cancer history receiving informative negative results did not decrease in risk over time nor did their risk differ from those with a personal cancer history, evidencing unrealistic pessimism regarding their risk of cancer. The reasons provided for individuals' risk perceptions could be classified in terms of attributes of the common sense model and included the: (1) causes of cancer (e.g. family history, mutation status); (2) control or cure of cancer through health behaviors and/or surgery; and (3) perceived timeline for developing cancer (e.g. time left in life to develop cancer). We conclude that key to developing interventions to improve understanding of cancer risk and promoting effective cancer control mechanisms is an understanding of the specific reasons underlying individuals' perceptions of cancer risk. 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15386791     DOI: 10.1002/pon.805

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychooncology        ISSN: 1057-9249            Impact factor:   3.894


  27 in total

1.  Personal attributions for melanoma risk in melanoma-affected patients and family members.

Authors:  Jennifer Hay; Marco DiBonaventura; Raymond Baser; Nancy Press; Jeanne Shoveller; Deborah Bowen
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2010-09-01

2.  Psychosocial Adjustment in School-age Girls With a Family History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda Patrick-Miller; Lisa Schwartz; Brian Egleston; Colleen Burke Sands; Wendy K Chung; Gord Glendon; Jasmine A McDonald; Cynthia Moore; Paula Rauch; Lisa Tuchman; Irene L Andrulis; Saundra S Buys; Caren J Frost; Theresa H M Keegan; Julia A Knight; Mary Beth Terry; Esther M John; Mary B Daly
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 3.  Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review.

Authors:  Shoshana Shiloh
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  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

5.  Health behaviors among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals receiving counseling for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Authors:  Jackie Quach; Kyle Porter; Howard Leventhal; Kimberly M Kelly
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  The Common Sense of Counseling Psychology: Introducing the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation.

Authors:  Lisa M McAndrew; J L Martin; M Friedlander; K Shaffer; J Breland; S Slotkin; H Leventhal
Journal:  Couns Psychol Q       Date:  2017-08-11

7.  Representations of cancer recurrence risk, recurrence worry, and health-protective behaviours: an elaborated, systematic review.

Authors:  Arturo Durazo; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2019-06-03

8.  Living post treatment: definitions of those with history and no history of cancer.

Authors:  Kimberly M Kelly; Neel Shah; Randi Shedlosky-Shoemaker; Kyle Porter; Doreen Agnese
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 4.442

9.  Perceived risk following melanoma genetic testing: a 2-year prospective study distinguishing subjective estimates from recall.

Authors:  Lisa G Aspinwall; Jennifer M Taber; Wendy Kohlmann; Samantha L Leaf; Sancy A Leachman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Women's perceptions of the personal and family impact of genetic cancer risk assessment: focus group findings.

Authors:  Deborah J MacDonald; Linda Sarna; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Betty Ferrell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.