AIM: To report the use of a risk score for risk treatment decision-making in women at risk for breast cancer in order to better understand their decision-making situation. BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen and Raloxifene are medications that have been proven to reduce the risk of breast cancer. However, women who understand their personal net benefit from Tamoxifen use chose not to take the medication. To understand this decision, the paper investigates the use of epidemiological risk information in the decision-making process for risk-reducing treatments. METHODS: The narratives of two women are analyzed as they recall their risk score and explain their decision-making process concerning participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Both in-depth interviews follow a narrative approach and were recorded in a U.S. cancer center in 2005. RESULTS: Thinking about risk by analyzing the chances of developing a disease is specific to complex decision-making situations. The associated risk-benefit analysis has to be conducted qualitatively as epidemiological risk information cannot know all details of a woman's life. In addition, a woman's decision is based on the perception of the condition as risk or as disease. Women are willing to treat risk that is perceived as disease, especially when it is based on bodily measurements on which the treatment has an effect. Women are not willing to treat a risk not perceived as disease. CONCLUSION: The net benefit of a treatment as calculated based on epidemiological data cannot easily be translated onto an individual's life. Thus, the complex experience of a woman's life at risk is highly important in decision-making situations. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The ambiguity of statistical risk estimates should be acknowledged and the women's evaluation of her risk valued in risk treatment decision-making.
AIM: To report the use of a risk score for risk treatment decision-making in women at risk for breast cancer in order to better understand their decision-making situation. BACKGROUND:Tamoxifen and Raloxifene are medications that have been proven to reduce the risk of breast cancer. However, women who understand their personal net benefit from Tamoxifen use chose not to take the medication. To understand this decision, the paper investigates the use of epidemiological risk information in the decision-making process for risk-reducing treatments. METHODS: The narratives of two women are analyzed as they recall their risk score and explain their decision-making process concerning participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Both in-depth interviews follow a narrative approach and were recorded in a U.S. cancer center in 2005. RESULTS: Thinking about risk by analyzing the chances of developing a disease is specific to complex decision-making situations. The associated risk-benefit analysis has to be conducted qualitatively as epidemiological risk information cannot know all details of a woman's life. In addition, a woman's decision is based on the perception of the condition as risk or as disease. Women are willing to treat risk that is perceived as disease, especially when it is based on bodily measurements on which the treatment has an effect. Women are not willing to treat a risk not perceived as disease. CONCLUSION: The net benefit of a treatment as calculated based on epidemiological data cannot easily be translated onto an individual's life. Thus, the complex experience of a woman's life at risk is highly important in decision-making situations. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The ambiguity of statistical risk estimates should be acknowledged and the women's evaluation of her risk valued in risk treatment decision-making.
Authors: Victor G Vogel; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Walter M Cronin; Reena S Cecchini; James N Atkins; Therese B Bevers; Louis Fehrenbacher; Eduardo R Pajon; James L Wade; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; Joan James; Scott M Lippman; Carolyn D Runowicz; Patricia A Ganz; Steven E Reis; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Leslie G Ford; V Craig Jordan; Norman Wolmark Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ian Graham; Dan Atar; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Gudrun Boysen; Gunilla Burell; Renata Cifkova; Jean Dallongeville; Guy De Backer; Shah Ebrahim; Bjørn Gjelsvik; Christoph Herrmann-Lingen; Arno Hoes; Steve Humphries; Mike Knapton; Joep Perk; Silvia G Priori; Kalevi Pyorala; Zeljko Reiner; Luis Ruilope; Susana Sans-Menendez; Wilma Scholte Op Reimer; Peter Weissberg; David Wood; John Yarnell; Jose Luis Zamorano; Edmond Walma; Tony Fitzgerald; Marie Therese Cooney; Alexandra Dudina; Alec Vahanian; John Camm; Raffaele De Caterina; Veronica Dean; Kenneth Dickstein; Christian Funck-Brentano; Gerasimos Filippatos; Irene Hellemans; Steen Dalby Kristensen; Keith McGregor; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Michal Tendera; Petr Widimsky; Jóse Luis Zamorano; Attila Altiner; Enzo Bonora; Paul N Durrington; Robert Fagard; Simona Giampaoli; Harry Hemingway; Jan Hakansson; Sverre Erik Kjeldsen; mogens Lytken Larsen; Giuseppe Mancia; Athanasios J Manolis; Kristina Orth-Gomer; Terje Pedersen; Mike Rayner; Lars Ryden; Mario Sammut; Neil Schneiderman; Anton F Stalenhoef; Lale Tokgözoglu; Olov Wiklund; Antonis Zampelas Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil Date: 2007-09
Authors: Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Dylan M Smith; Holly A Derry; Jennifer B McClure; Azadeh Stark; Rosemarie K Pitsch; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-11
Authors: Sarah B Blakeslee; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Patricia A Parker; Christine M Gunn; Hanna Bandos; Therese B Bevers; Tracy A Battaglia; Angela Fagerlin; Jacqueline Müller-Nordhorn; Christine Holmberg Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-06-27
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Barbara Bokhour; Victoria A Parker; Patricia A Parker; Sarah Blakeslee; Hanna Bandos; Christine Holmberg Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2019 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 2.592
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
Authors: Linda Rainey; Daniëlle van der Waal; Louise S Donnelly; D Gareth Evans; Yvonne Wengström; Mireille Broeders Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: S G Smith; I Sestak; A Forster; A Partridge; L Side; M S Wolf; R Horne; J Wardle; J Cuzick Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 32.976