Literature DB >> 25820809

Intuition versus cognition: a qualitative exploration of how women understand and manage their increased breast cancer risk.

Louise Heiniger1,2, Phyllis N Butow3,4, Margaret Charles3, Melanie A Price3,4.   

Abstract

Risk comprehension in individuals at increased familial risk of cancer is suboptimal and little is known about how risk is understood and managed by at-risk individuals who do not undergo genetic testing. We qualitatively studied these issues in 36 unaffected women from high-risk breast cancer families, including both women who had and had not undergone genetic testing. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and data analysis was guided by Grounded Theory. Risk comprehension and risk management were largely influenced by the individual's experience of coming from a high-risk family, with both tested and untested women relying heavily on their intuition. Although women's cognitive understanding of their risk appeared generally accurate, this objective risk information was considered of secondary value. The findings could be used to guide the development and delivery of information about risk and risk management to genetically tested and untested individuals at increased risk of hereditary cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Familial risk; Genetic testing; Oncology; Risk comprehension; Risk perception

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25820809     DOI: 10.1007/s10865-015-9632-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Behav Med        ISSN: 0160-7715


  55 in total

Review 1.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Factors associated with intrusive cancer-related worries in women undergoing cancer genetic risk assessment.

Authors:  Paul Bennett; Clare Wilkinson; Jim Turner; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Barbara France; Gethin Griffith; Gethin Griffin; Jonathon Gray
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014.

Authors:  Rebecca Siegel; Carol Desantis; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  A descriptive study of BRCA1 testing and reactions to disclosure of test results.

Authors:  H T Lynch; S J Lemon; C Durham; S T Tinley; C Connolly; J F Lynch; J Surdam; E Orinion; S Slominski-Caster; P Watson; C Lerman; P Tonin; G Lenoir; O Serova; S Narod
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1997-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  Decision making and decision support for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Beth N Peshkin; Kenneth P Tercyak; Kathryn L Taylor; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.267

6.  BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families III: risk perception and screening.

Authors:  Aideen McInerney-Leo; Donald Hadley; Ronald G Kase; Therese R Giambarresi; Jeffery P Struewing; Barbara Bowles Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-10-15       Impact factor: 2.802

7.  Feeling at risk: how women interpret their familial breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Sandra van Dijk; Wilma Otten; Christi J van Asperen; Danielle R M Timmermans; Aad Tibben; Moniek W Zoeteweij; Sylvia Silberg; Martijn H Breuning; Job Kievit
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 2.802

8.  Psychological distress in women seeking genetic counseling for breast-ovarian cancer risk: the contributions of personality and appraisal.

Authors:  J Audrain; M D Schwartz; C Lerman; C Hughes; B N Peshkin; B Biesecker
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  1997

9.  Subjective versus objective risk in genetic counseling for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers.

Authors:  Anita Caruso; Cristina Vigna; Bruna Marozzo; Fabio M Sega; Isabella Sperduti; Francesco Cognetti; Antonella Savarese
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-12-21

Review 10.  Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Jon Emery; Fiona Walter; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-01-21       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  11 in total

1.  Current directions in behavioral medicine research on genetic testing for disease susceptibility: introduction to the special section.

Authors:  Kerry A Sherman; Linda D Cameron
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-10

2.  Factors affecting breast cancer patients' need for genetic risk information: From information insufficiency to information need.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong; Barbara Biesecker; Jennifer Ivanovich; Melody Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 3.  How do women who are informed that they are at increased risk of breast cancer appraise their risk? A systematic review of qualitative research.

Authors:  Victoria G Woof; Anthony Howell; Lorna McWilliams; D Gareth Evans; David P French
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 9.075

Review 4.  How do women at increased breast cancer risk perceive and decide between risks of cancer and risk-reducing treatments? A synthesis of qualitative research.

Authors:  Hannah G Fielden; Stephen L Brown; Pooja Saini; Helen Beesley; Peter Salmon
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 3.894

Review 5.  Decision making for breast cancer prevention among women at elevated risk.

Authors:  Tasleem J Padamsee; Celia E Wills; Lisa D Yee; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests.

Authors:  Stephen L Brown; Demian Whiting; Hannah G Fielden; Pooja Saini; Helen Beesley; Christopher Holcombe; Susan Holcombe; Lyn Greenhalgh; Louise Fairburn; Peter Salmon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-26       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Cancer-related worry and risk perception in Brazilian individuals seeking genetic counseling for hereditary breast cancer.

Authors:  Edenir Inêz Palmero; Natalia Campacci; Lavinia Schüler-Faccini; Roberto Giugliani; José Claudio Casali da Rocha; Fernando Regla Vargas; Patricia Ashton-Prolla
Journal:  Genet Mol Biol       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 1.771

8.  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

Review 9.  Reconciling the theory and reality of shared decision-making: A "matching" approach to practitioner leadership.

Authors:  Stephen L Brown; Peter Salmon
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Max Bayne; Madi Fairey; Barbora Silarova; Simon J Griffin; Stephen J Sharp; William M P Klein; Stephen Sutton; Juliet A Usher-Smith
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2019-08-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.