Jennifer Livaudais-Toman1, Leah S Karliner2, Jeffrey A Tice3, Karla Kerlikowske4, Steven Gregorich5, Eliseo J Pérez-Stable2, Rena J Pasick3, Alice Chen3, Jessica Quinn6, Celia P Kaplan2. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: jennifer.toman@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To estimate the effects of a tablet-based, breast cancer risk education intervention for use in primary care settings (BreastCARE) on patients' breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern. METHODS:From June 2011-August 2012, we enrolled women from two clinics, aged 40-74 years with no personal breast cancer history, and randomized them to the BreastCARE intervention group or to the control group. All patients completed a baseline telephone survey and risk assessment (via telephone for controls, via tablet computer in clinic waiting room prior to visit for intervention). All women were categorized as high or average risk based on the Referral Screening Tool, the Gail model or the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model. Intervention patients and their physicians received an individualized risk report to discuss during the visit. All women completed a follow-up telephone survey 1-2 weeks after risk assessment. Post-test comparisons estimated differences at follow-up in breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern. RESULTS: 580 intervention and 655 control women completed follow-up interviews. Mean age was 56 years (SD = 9). At follow-up, 73% of controls and 71% of intervention women correctly perceived their breast cancer risk and 22% of controls and 24% of intervention women were very concerned about breast cancer. Intervention patients had greater knowledge (≥75% correct answers) of breast cancer risk factors at follow-up (24% vs. 16%; p = 0.002). In multivariable analysis, there were no differences in correct risk perception or concern, but intervention patients had greater knowledge ([OR] = 1.62; 95% [CI] = 1.19-2.23). CONCLUSIONS: A simple, practical intervention involving physicians at the point of care can improve knowledge of breast cancer without increasing concern. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01830933.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To estimate the effects of a tablet-based, breast cancer risk education intervention for use in primary care settings (BreastCARE) on patients' breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern. METHODS: From June 2011-August 2012, we enrolled women from two clinics, aged 40-74 years with no personal breast cancer history, and randomized them to the BreastCARE intervention group or to the control group. All patients completed a baseline telephone survey and risk assessment (via telephone for controls, via tablet computer in clinic waiting room prior to visit for intervention). All women were categorized as high or average risk based on the Referral Screening Tool, the Gail model or the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model. Intervention patients and their physicians received an individualized risk report to discuss during the visit. All women completed a follow-up telephone survey 1-2 weeks after risk assessment. Post-test comparisons estimated differences at follow-up in breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern. RESULTS: 580 intervention and 655 control women completed follow-up interviews. Mean age was 56 years (SD = 9). At follow-up, 73% of controls and 71% of intervention women correctly perceived their breast cancer risk and 22% of controls and 24% of intervention women were very concerned about breast cancer. Intervention patients had greater knowledge (≥75% correct answers) of breast cancer risk factors at follow-up (24% vs. 16%; p = 0.002). In multivariable analysis, there were no differences in correct risk perception or concern, but intervention patients had greater knowledge ([OR] = 1.62; 95% [CI] = 1.19-2.23). CONCLUSIONS: A simple, practical intervention involving physicians at the point of care can improve knowledge of breast cancer without increasing concern. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01830933.
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: Celia Patricia Kaplan; Jennifer S Haas; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Steven E Gregorich; Carol Somkin; Genevieve Des Jarlais; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Celia P Kaplan; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Rena J Pasick; Alice Chen; Jessica Quinn; Leah S Karliner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: C Lerman; B Biesecker; J L Benkendorf; J Kerner; A Gomez-Caminero; C Hughes; M M Reed Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1997-01-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anne McTiernan; Charles Kooperberg; Emily White; Sara Wilcox; Ralph Coates; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Nancy Woods; Judith Ockene Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-09-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sue E Kim; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Sabrina Wong; Steve Gregorich; George F Sawaya; Judith M E Walsh; Celia P Kaplan Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-04-14
Authors: Jennifer G McIntosh; Jesse Minshall; Sibel Saya; Adrian Bickerstaffe; Nadira Hewabandu; Ashleigh Qama; Jon D Emery Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Lori L DuBenske; Sarina Schrager; Helene McDowell; Lee G Wilke; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: Breast J Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 2.431