Literature DB >> 16996669

The cognitive structuring of patient delay in breast cancer.

Noreen C Facione1, Peter A Facione.   

Abstract

The reasons women give for delaying diagnosis of breast cancer symptoms are numerous and striking. Yet none prove reliable as indicators of those who will delay, and most women overcome all barriers to seek immediate diagnosis. This study looks more deeply into the reasoning of symptomatic women sustaining confidence in a decision to delay diagnosis of self-discovered breast symptoms. Using argument and heuristic analysis, we examined the structure and soundness of the reasoning in interviews with 28 women from the San Francisco Bay area monitoring breast symptoms. Fifteen women were sustaining decisions to delay seeking diagnosis. Their arguments' structure and soundness, and their dependence on heuristic strategies, were compared with those of women who did not delay. Prompt diagnosis-seekers used vivid stories of other women with breast cancer to explain their diagnosis seeking, and the others used similar stories to justify on-going decisions to delay. Diagnosis-seekers offered more arguments for doing so than for delay. Delayers offered fewer arguments for seeking diagnosis and many more for delay. Delayers abandoned sound and usually compelling arguments to seek diagnosis, relying instead on false information, poorly reasoned arguments, and self-created dominance structures around decisions to delay. Decisions to delay were resilient, yet required maintenance to sustain. Intervention studies aimed at decreasing patient delay should address the thinking process by questioning reliance on mistaken claims of control over possibly advancing cancer, satisficing (corner-cutting to arrive at a minimally adequate solution to achieve a goal) when scheduling diagnostic visits, simulating a benign diagnosis rather than the prevention of late-staged cancer, prioritizing fear control over protection of life. Interventions might also include challenging mistaken analogies and the too facile abandonment of sound arguments for seeking prompt diagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16996669     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  17 in total

1.  Breast cancer patients' experiences within and outside the safety net.

Authors:  Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Donna B Jeffe; Leisha Elmore; Deborah N Ksiazek; Julie A Margenthaler
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 2.192

2.  Preserving the self: the process of decision making about hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer risk reduction.

Authors:  A Fuchsia Howard; Lynda G Balneaves; Joan L Bottorff; Patricia Rodney
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2010-10-27

3.  Diagnostic resolution of cancer screening abnormalities at community health centers.

Authors:  Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ercilia R Calcano; Cathy D Meade; William J Fulp; Kristen J Wells
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2012-08

4.  Patient and process factors associated with late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in Safety-Net patients: a pilot prospective study.

Authors:  Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Donna B Jeffe; Leisha Elmore; Deborah N Ksiazek; Julie A Margenthaler
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Predictors of breast examination practices of Chinese immigrants.

Authors:  Wei-Ti Chen
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.592

6.  Could screening participation bias symptom interpretation? An interview study on women's interpretations of and responses to cancer symptoms between mammography screening rounds.

Authors:  Marit Solbjør; John-Arne Skolbekken; Ann Rudinow Sætnan; Anne Irene Hagen; Siri Forsmo
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 7.  Applying symptom appraisal models to understand sociodemographic differences in responses to possible cancer symptoms: a research agenda.

Authors:  K L Whitaker; S E Scott; J Wardle
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Patient delay in cancer studies: a discussion of methods and measures.

Authors:  Rikke Sand Andersen; Peter Vedsted; Frede Olesen; Flemming Bro; Jens Søndergaard
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-10-19       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Women's interpretation of and responses to potential gynaecological cancer symptoms: a qualitative interview study.

Authors:  E L Low; K L Whitaker; A E Simon; M Sekhon; J Waller
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Low cancer suspicion following experience of a cancer 'warning sign'.

Authors:  Katriina L Whitaker; Kelly Winstanley; Una Macleod; Suzanne E Scott; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 9.162

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.