Literature DB >> 17327893

Women's views on chemoprevention of breast cancer: qualitative study.

R Heisey1, N Pimlott, M Clemons, S Cummings, N Drummond.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine, in a family practice setting, women's views on incentives for and barriers to taking chemopreventive therapy for breast cancer.
DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews.
SETTING: Women's College Family Practice Health Centre, an academic centre in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: THREE GROUPS OF WOMEN WERE RECRUITED: women who might in future be candidates for chemoprevention, women who were then candidates for chemoprevention, and then-current participants in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) chemoprevention trial.
METHOD: Women were asked about their views on taking a pill to prevent breast cancer, their hopes and expectations regarding chemoprevention, incentives for and barriers to accepting chemopreventive therapy, and their preferred sources of information. Visual analogue scales were used to estimate perceived risk of breast cancer and personal interest in chemoprevention. Participants' Gail scores, perceptions of risk of breast cancer, perceptions of likelihood of accepting chemopreventive treatment, attitudes, views, and experiences were recorded. MAIN
FINDINGS: The 27 women interviewed (median age 61 years, range 38 to 77) had a mean Gail score of 3.3 (indicating a 3.3% estimated risk of breast cancer within the next 5 years), range 1.4 to 6.8. Women were very interested in chemoprevention (62% to 67% likelihood of their taking it in the next 5 years). Perceived risk of breast cancer was not correlated with actual risk or with likelihood of taking chemopreventive therapy. To accept chemoprevention, women needed to know it would lead to an acceptable decrease in risk of breast cancer and needed more information about the medication. Incentives for acceptance included clear evidence of efficacy, prevention of cancer, altruism (contributing to an important area of research), secondary gain, and the feeling of being proactive and in control. Barriers included fear of side effects, lack of information, denial, aversion to medication, the term "chemoprevention," and the effect of the "HRT fiasco." Women's most trusted information source was their family physicians. Women overestimated their risk of breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: Women were interested in chemoprevention, but required more information, preferably from their family physicians. Our data suggest that at least 4 conditions must be met for women to accept chemopreventive therapy. They must believe in its effectiveness, be proactive about their health care, believe side effects will be tolerable, and be able to overcome the fear of ingesting a pill. To make the therapy more acceptable, the term "chemoprevention" should be discontinued.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17327893      PMCID: PMC1531726     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  25 in total

1.  Breast cancer risk associated with gynecologic surgery and indications for such surgery.

Authors:  C Schairer; I Persson; M Falkeborn; T Naessen; R Troisi; L A Brinton
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1997-01-17       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial.

Authors:  J Cuzick; J Forbes; R Edwards; M Baum; S Cawthorn; A Coates; A Hamed; A Howell; T Powles
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-09-14       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Cancer statistics, 2004.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Ram C Tiwari; Taylor Murray; Asma Ghafoor; Alicia Samuels; Elizabeth Ward; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Increasing the accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk: results from a randomized trial with Cancer Information Service callers.

Authors:  Sharon Davis; Susan Stewart; Joan Bloom
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 6.  Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials.

Authors:  J Cuzick; T Powles; U Veronesi; J Forbes; R Edwards; S Ashley; P Boyle
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-01-25       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Prophylactic oophorectomy.

Authors:  W J Meijer; A C van Lindert
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  1992-10-23       Impact factor: 2.435

8.  Do physicians tailor their recommendations for breast cancer risk reduction based on patient's risk?

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Celia P Kaplan; Steven E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Genevieve Des Jarlais
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Understanding why older people participate in clinical trials: the experience of the Scottish PROSPER participants.

Authors:  Elizabeth P Tolmie; Moira M B Mungall; Greig Louden; Grace M Lindsay; Allan Gaw
Journal:  Age Ageing       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 10.668

10.  Attitudes to prophylactic surgery and chemoprevention in Australian women at increased risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  B Meiser; P Butow; M Price; B Bennett; G Berry; K Tucker
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.681

View more
  29 in total

Review 1.  Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mary E Ropka; Jess Keim; John T Philbrick
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Chemoprevention Uptake among Women with Atypical Hyperplasia and Lobular and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Meghna S Trivedi; Austin M Coe; Alejandro Vanegas; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2017-06-13

3.  My Lived Experiences Are More Important Than Your Probabilities: The Role of Individualized Risk Estimates for Decision Making about Participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR).

Authors:  Christine Holmberg; Erika A Waters; Katie Whitehouse; Mary Daly; Worta McCaskill-Stevens
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention in 2010.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Timothy S McNeel; Worta McCaskill Stevens; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Identification of factors that influence the decision to take chemoprevention in patients with a significant family history of breast cancer: results from a patient questionnaire survey.

Authors:  Stacey Jones; Brian Hogan; Kirtida Patel; Shiwei Ooi; Philip Turton; Rajgopal Achuthan; Baek Kim
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Prevalence of tamoxifen use for breast cancer chemoprevention among U.S. women.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Kathleen A Cronin; Barry I Graubard; Paul K Han; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Chemoprevention Uptake for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Varies by Risk Factor.

Authors:  Meghan R Flanagan; Emily C Zabor; Michelle Stempel; Debra A Mangino; Monica Morrow; Melissa L Pilewskie
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Psychosocial factors related to non-persistence with adjuvant endocrine therapy among women with breast cancer: the Breast Cancer Quality of Care Study (BQUAL).

Authors:  Dawn L Hershman; Lawrence H Kushi; Grace Clarke Hillyer; Ellie Coromilas; Donna Buono; Lois Lamerato; Dana H Bovbjerg; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Wei-Yann Tsai; Xiaobo Zhong; Judith S Jacobson; Jason D Wright; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Acceptability of Localized Cancer Risk Reduction Interventions Among Individuals at Average or High Risk for Cancer.

Authors:  Goli Samimi; Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard; Shelley S Kay; Bonny Bloodgood; Kisha I Coa; Jennifer L Robinson; Bethany Tennant; Leslie G Ford; Eva Szabo; Lori Minasian
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2019-03-01

10.  What Matters to Women When Making Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention?

Authors:  Kathryn A Martinez; Angela Fagerlin; Holly O Witteman; Christine Holmberg; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.