Literature DB >> 20090298

'A low risk is still a risk': exploring women's attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention.

L Henneman1, D R Timmermans, C M Bouwman, M C Cornel, H Meijers-Heijboer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Population breast cancer screening programs by mammography are offered to women based on age. It has been suggested that a screening program based on genetic risk profile could be more effective by targeting interventions at those at higher genetic risk. This study explores women's attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target breast cancer prevention.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using 4 focus groups with 26 women aged 42-73 years. Women were selected irrespective of personal or family history of breast cancer. Discussions were audiotaped and content analyzed.
RESULTS: The results show that in general women are positive towards a breast cancer screening program based on genetic risk profile, provided that in the low-risk group, though less frequent, women are still offered mammography screening (i.e. right to screening (a)). Other themes that women addressed were: (b) value of the genetic risk information (e.g. possibilities for cancer prevention at younger ages, less screening burden for low-risk women), (c) personal autonomy (e.g. free choice to undergo testing), (d) dealing with test results (e.g. burden of risk, motivation to reduce the risk), (e) discrimination, and (f) financial aspects and priority (e.g. with respect to other health care programs).
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that women currently offered breast cancer screening based on age have a positive attitude towards population susceptibility screening for breast cancer, but also identified issues that need to be discussed and studied further, especially if women in the low-risk group were no longer to be offered mammography screening.
Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20090298     DOI: 10.1159/000276543

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Genomics        ISSN: 1662-4246            Impact factor:   2.000


  20 in total

1.  "It's all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it's a long way to being able to write": Men's interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Elizabeth K Bancroft; Elena Castro; Audrey Ardern-Jones; Clare Moynihan; Elizabeth Page; Natalie Taylor; Rosalind A Eeles; Emma Rowley; Karen Cox
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Emily C Shen; Swetha Srinivasan; Lauren E Passero; Caitlin G Allen; Madison Dixon; Kimberly Foss; Brianna Halliburton; Laura V Milko; Amelia K Smit; Rebecca Carlson; Megan C Roberts
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genomic testing in cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tatiane Yanes; Amanda M Willis; Bettina Meiser; Katherine M Tucker; Megan Best
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Why Breast Cancer Risk by the Numbers Is Not Enough: Evaluation of a Decision Aid in Multi-Ethnic, Low-Numerate Women.

Authors:  Rita Kukafka; Haeseung Yi; Tong Xiao; Parijatham Thomas; Alejandra Aguirre; Cindy Smalletz; Raven David; Katherine Crew
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 5.  Do Health Professionals Need Additional Competencies for Stratified Cancer Prevention Based on Genetic Risk Profiling?

Authors:  Susmita Chowdhury; Lidewij Henneman; Tom Dent; Alison Hall; Alice Burton; Paul Pharoah; Nora Pashayan; Hilary Burton
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2015-06-09

6.  Adjusting the frequency of mammography screening on the basis of genetic risk: Attitudes among women in the UK.

Authors:  Susanne F Meisel; Nora Pashayan; Belinda Rahman; Lucy Side; Lindsay Fraser; Sue Gessler; Anne Lanceley; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2015-02-21       Impact factor: 4.380

7.  Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable?

Authors:  Lorna McWilliams; Victoria G Woof; Louise S Donnelly; Anthony Howell; D Gareth Evans; David P French
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-05-29       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  A cluster-randomised, parallel group, controlled intervention study of genetic prostate cancer risk assessment and use of PSA tests in general practice--the ProCaRis study: study protocol.

Authors:  Pia Kirkegaard; Peter Vedsted; Adrian Edwards; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Flemming Bro
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Population-based genetic risk prediction and stratification for ovarian cancer: views from women at high risk.

Authors:  Belinda Rahman; Susanne F Meisel; Lindsay Fraser; Lucy Side; Sue Gessler; Jane Wardle; Anne Lanceley
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudes.

Authors:  Susanne F Meisel; Belinda Rahman; Lucy Side; Lindsay Fraser; Sue Gessler; Anne Lanceley; Jane Wardle
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 2.809

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.