Literature DB >> 16702376

Value for the future and breast cancer-preventive health behavior.

Andrea Gurmankin Levy1, Ellyn Micco, Mary Putt, Katrina Armstrong.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Time preference, or the extent to which people discount future benefits in favor of immediate benefits, might represent an important determinant of preventive health behavior, but the little research thus far on this association has yielded mixed results. This study examined the association between future time preference and use of genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 testing and how this association may differ from the relationship between future time preference and mammography screening and self-breast examination. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: A health system-based case-control study with a nested cross-sectional survey. Eight hundred women who saw a primary care physician in the University of Pennsylvania Health System in the 3 years before the study, of whom 234 had undergone BRCA1/2 counseling (cases) and of whom 566 had not (controls).
RESULTS: Placing a relatively greater value on future benefits than present benefits was strongly associated with use of BRCA1/2 counseling [odds ratio (OR), 3.0 for one-point increase in future time preference; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.9-4.9]. Future time preference was weakly associated with adherence to annual mammography (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.81-2.2), and was not associated with monthly self-breast examination (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.75-1.4). A stronger future orientation was seen in women who had higher levels of education (P = 0.0021) or income (P = 0.0011).
CONCLUSION: Time preference is strongly associated with use of BRCA1/2 counseling. Time preference is more weakly associated with mammography adherence and is not associated with breast self-examination. This variation may reflect the degree to which the behavior is seen as related to future risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16702376     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0169

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  13 in total

1.  Donation intentions for cancer genetics research among African Americans.

Authors:  Jasmine A McDonald; Benita Weathers; Frances K Barg; Andrea B Troxel; Judy A Shea; Deborah Bowen; Carmen E Guerra; Chanita Hughes Halbert
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2012-01-06

2.  Beliefs about Genetically Targeted Care in African Americans.

Authors:  Chanita Hughes Halbert; Jasmine A McDonald; Gayenell Magwood; Melanie Jefferson
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 1.798

3.  Education and coronary heart disease risk: potential mechanisms such as literacy, perceived constraints, and depressive symptoms.

Authors:  Eric B Loucks; Stephen E Gilman; Chanelle J Howe; Ichiro Kawachi; Laura D Kubzansky; Rima E Rudd; Laurie T Martin; Arijit Nandi; Aude Wilhelm; Stephen L Buka
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2014-11-27

4.  Effect of genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in African American women: a randomized trial.

Authors:  C H Halbert; L Kessler; A B Troxel; J E Stopfer; S Domchek
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  Is there an impatience genotype leading to non-adherence to long-term therapies?

Authors:  G Reach
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 10.122

6.  Association between temporal orientation and attitudes about BRCA1/2 testing among women of African descent with family histories of breast cancer.

Authors:  Tiffany A Edwards; Hayley S Thompson; Naa Oyo A Kwate; Karen Brown; Margaret M McGovern; Andrea Forman; Nidhi Kapil-Pair; Lina Jandorf; Dana H Bovbjerg; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-05-13

7.  Preferences, beliefs, and self-management of diabetes.

Authors:  Frank A Sloan; Norma A Padrón; Alyssa C Platt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Clinical management of smoking cessation: patient factors affecting a reward-based approach.

Authors:  Jeanette M Renaud; Michael T Halpern
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2010-12-10       Impact factor: 2.711

9.  Using discounting biases, risk characteristics, and perceived control improves preventive programs.

Authors:  Monica Ortendahl
Journal:  Int J Biomed Sci       Date:  2007-06

Review 10.  Patient autonomy in chronic care: solving a paradox.

Authors:  Gérard Reach
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.