Literature DB >> 21731580

SI RLTD: Risk Scores and Decision Making: The Anatomy of a Decision to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk.

Christine Holmberg1, Mary Daly, Worta McCaskill-Stevens.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 21731580      PMCID: PMC3124706          DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-9824.2010.01068.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nurs Healthc Chronic Illn        ISSN: 1752-9816


  50 in total

1.  Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering.

Authors:  Ray Moynihan; Iona Heath; David Henry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-13

Review 2.  Re-conceptualizing risk in genetic counseling: implications for clinical practice.

Authors:  Jehannine C Austin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-01-30       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial.

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

4.  European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: full text. Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts).

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

5.  Explaining contradictory relations between risk perception and risk taking.

Authors:  Britain Mills; Valerie F Reyna; Steven Estrada
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-05

6.  Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

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

7.  Breast cancer risk perception and lifestyle behaviors among White and Black women with a family history of the disease.

Authors:  Denise Spector; Merle Mishel; Celette Sugg Skinner; Lisa A Deroo; Marcia Vanriper; Dale P Sandler
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.592

8.  Danger zones: risk perceptions of young women from families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Allison V Werner-Lin
Journal:  Fam Process       Date:  2007-09

Review 9.  Blood pressure, systolic and diastolic, and cardiovascular risks. US population data.

Authors:  J Stamler; R Stamler; J D Neaton
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1993-03-08

10.  Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs.

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
View more
  8 in total

1.  Deciding on breast cancer risk reduction: The role of counseling in individual decision-making - A qualitative study.

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

2.  Exploring Explanatory Models of Risk in Breast Cancer Risk Counseling Discussions: NSABP/NRG Oncology Decision-Making Project 1.

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

3.  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

4.  'No Pink Ribbons': How Women's Lived Experiences With Breast Atypia Inform Decisions Involving Risk-Reducing Medications.

Authors:  Sarah L Goff; Reva Kleppel; Grace Makari-Judson
Journal:  J Patient Cent Res Rev       Date:  2018-04-26

5.  Women's decision-making regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening and prevention from the perspective of international healthcare professionals.

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

6.  Risk accuracy of type 2 diabetes in middle aged adults: Associations with sociodemographic, clinical, psychological and behavioural factors.

Authors:  Barbora Silarova; Fiona E Douglas; Juliet A Usher-Smith; Job G Godino; Simon J Griffin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-07-21

7.  Understanding low chemoprevention uptake by women at high risk of breast cancer: findings from a qualitative inductive study of women's risk-reduction experiences.

Authors:  Tasleem J Padamsee; Megan Hils; Anna Muraveva
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 8.  Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.