Mark Manning1, Terrance L Albrecht2, Zeynep Yilmaz-Saab2, Julie Shultz2, Kristen Purrington2. 1. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 4100 John R Rd, Detroit, MI 48201, United States. Electronic address: manningm@karmanos.org. 2. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 4100 John R Rd, Detroit, MI 48201, United States.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Many states have adopted laws mandating breast density (BD) notification for applicable women; however, very little is known about what women knew or felt about BD and related breast cancer (BC) risk before implementation of BD notification laws. OBJECTIVE: We examined between-race differences in the extent to which having dense breasts was associated with women's related BD cognition and emotion, and with health care providers' communication about BD. METHODS: We received surveys between May and October of 2015 assessing health care provider (HCP) communication about BD, BD-related knowledge, BD-related anxiety and BC worry from 182 African American (AA) and 113 European American (EA) women in the state of Michigan for whom we had radiologists' assessments of BD. RESULTS: Whereas having dense breasts was not associated with any BD-related cognition or emotion, there were robust effects of race as follows: EA women were more likely to have been told about BD by a HCP, more likely to know their BD status, had greater knowledge of BD and of BC risk, and had greater perceptions of BC risk and worry; AA women had greater BD-related anxieties. EA women's greater knowledge of their own BD status was directly related to the increased likelihood of HCP communication about BD. However, HCP communication about BD attenuated anxiety for AA women only. CONCLUSION: We present the only data of which we are aware that examines between-race differences in the associations between actual BD, HCP communication and BD related cognition and emotion before the implementation of BD notification laws. Our findings suggest that the BD notification laws could yield positive benefits for disparities in BD-related knowledge and anxiety when the notifications are followed by discussions with health care providers.
RATIONALE: Many states have adopted laws mandating breast density (BD) notification for applicable women; however, very little is known about what women knew or felt about BD and related breast cancer (BC) risk before implementation of BD notification laws. OBJECTIVE: We examined between-race differences in the extent to which having dense breasts was associated with women's related BD cognition and emotion, and with health care providers' communication about BD. METHODS: We received surveys between May and October of 2015 assessing health care provider (HCP) communication about BD, BD-related knowledge, BD-related anxiety and BC worry from 182 African American (AA) and 113 European American (EA) women in the state of Michigan for whom we had radiologists' assessments of BD. RESULTS: Whereas having dense breasts was not associated with any BD-related cognition or emotion, there were robust effects of race as follows: EA women were more likely to have been told about BD by a HCP, more likely to know their BD status, had greater knowledge of BD and of BC risk, and had greater perceptions of BC risk and worry; AA women had greater BD-related anxieties. EA women's greater knowledge of their own BD status was directly related to the increased likelihood of HCP communication about BD. However, HCP communication about BD attenuated anxiety for AA women only. CONCLUSION: We present the only data of which we are aware that examines between-race differences in the associations between actual BD, HCP communication and BD related cognition and emotion before the implementation of BD notification laws. Our findings suggest that the BD notification laws could yield positive benefits for disparities in BD-related knowledge and anxiety when the notifications are followed by discussions with health care providers.
Authors: Monica E Peek; Angela Odoms-Young; Michael T Quinn; Rita Gorawara-Bhat; Shannon C Wilson; Marshall H Chin Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Michael J Green; Susan K Peterson; Maria Wagner Baker; Gregory R Harper; Lois C Friedman; Wendy S Rubinstein; David T Mauger Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brittny C Davis Lynn; Philip S Rosenberg; William F Anderson; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christine Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Timothy Bickmore; Mark Kennedy; Margaret F Hopkins; Michael D C Fishman; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Erica T Warner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Siobhan S Mahorter; Sarah Knerr; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Karen J Wernli; Hongyuan Gao; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Mark Manning; Terrance L Albrecht; Zeynep Yilmaz-Saab; Louis Penner; Andria Norman; Kristen Purrington Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Suzanne C O'Neill; Tengfei Li; Sarah Knerr; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz; Jinani Jayasekera; Kathleen Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; David Farrell; Hongyuan Gao; Amanda L Graham; George Luta; Karen J Wernli Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 2.681