OBJECTIVE: Rising health disparities are increasingly evident in relation to use of genetic services (including genetic counseling and testing) for breast cancer risk, with women of African descent less likely to use genetic services compared with Whites. Meanwhile, little is known regarding potential within-group acculturation and psychological differences underlying perceived barriers to genetic testing among women of African descent. METHODS: Hypothesized contributions of acculturation factors and breast cancer-specific distress to perceived barriers to genetic testing were examined with a statistical analysis of baseline data from 146 women of African descent (56% US born and 44% foreign born) meeting genetic breast cancer risk criteria and participating in a larger longitudinal study that included the opportunity for free genetic counseling and testing. Perceived barriers assessed included: (1) anticipation of negative emotional reactions, (2) stigma, (3) confidentiality concerns, (4) family-related worry, and (5) family-related guilt associated with genetic testing. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses, being foreign born was a significant predictor of anticipated negative emotional reactions about genetic testing (beta=0.26; SE=0.11; p=0.01). Breast cancer-specific distress scores (avoidance symptoms) were positively related to anticipated negative emotional reactions (beta=0.02; SE=0.005; p=<0.0001), confidentiality concerns (beta=0.02; SE=0.01; p=0.02), and family-related guilt (beta=0.02; SE=0.01; p=0.0009) associated with genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest an influence of acculturation and breast cancer-specific distress on perceived barriers to genetic testing among women of African descent. The potential utility of culturally tailored genetic counseling services taking into account such influences and addressing emotional and psychological concerns of women considering genetic testing for breast cancer should be investigated.
OBJECTIVE: Rising health disparities are increasingly evident in relation to use of genetic services (including genetic counseling and testing) for breast cancer risk, with women of African descent less likely to use genetic services compared with Whites. Meanwhile, little is known regarding potential within-group acculturation and psychological differences underlying perceived barriers to genetic testing among women of African descent. METHODS: Hypothesized contributions of acculturation factors and breast cancer-specific distress to perceived barriers to genetic testing were examined with a statistical analysis of baseline data from 146 women of African descent (56% US born and 44% foreign born) meeting genetic breast cancer risk criteria and participating in a larger longitudinal study that included the opportunity for free genetic counseling and testing. Perceived barriers assessed included: (1) anticipation of negative emotional reactions, (2) stigma, (3) confidentiality concerns, (4) family-related worry, and (5) family-related guilt associated with genetic testing. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses, being foreign born was a significant predictor of anticipated negative emotional reactions about genetic testing (beta=0.26; SE=0.11; p=0.01). Breast cancer-specific distress scores (avoidance symptoms) were positively related to anticipated negative emotional reactions (beta=0.02; SE=0.005; p=<0.0001), confidentiality concerns (beta=0.02; SE=0.01; p=0.02), and family-related guilt (beta=0.02; SE=0.01; p=0.0009) associated with genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest an influence of acculturation and breast cancer-specific distress on perceived barriers to genetic testing among women of African descent. The potential utility of culturally tailored genetic counseling services taking into account such influences and addressing emotional and psychological concerns of women considering genetic testing for breast cancer should be investigated.
Authors: Ana F Abraído-Lanza; Adria N Armbrister; Karen R Flórez; Alejandra N Aguirre Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-06-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: David R Williams; Rahwa Haile; Hector M González; Harold Neighbors; Raymond Baser; James S Jackson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-11-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Lisa J Crockett; Maria I Iturbide; Rosalie A Torres Stone; Meredith McGinley; Marcela Raffaelli; Gustavo Carlo Journal: Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol Date: 2007-10
Authors: Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Julie O Culver; Kenneth Offit Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Melanie W Hardy; Beth N Peshkin; Esther Rose; Mary Kathleen Ladd; Savannah Binion; Mara Tynan; Colleen M McBride; Karen A Grinzaid; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2022-04-29
Authors: Katie E J Hann; Madeleine Freeman; Lindsay Fraser; Jo Waller; Saskia C Sanderson; Belinda Rahman; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Anne Lanceley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.295