E J Rutherford1, J Kelly2, E A Lehane3, V Livingstone2, B Cotter2, A Butt2, M J O'Sullivan2, F O Connell2, H P Redmond1, M A Corrigan4. 1. Cork Breast Research Centre, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland; School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 2. Cork Breast Research Centre, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. 3. Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 4. Cork Breast Research Centre, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. Electronic address: markcorrigan@rcsi.ie.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informed consent is an essential component of medical practice, and especially so in procedural based specialties which entail varying degrees of risk. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women, and as such is the focus of extensive research and significant media attention. Despite this, considerable misperception exists regarding the risk of developing breast cancer. AIMS: This study aims to examine the accuracy of risk perception of women attending a breast cancer family history clinic, and to explore the relationship between risk perception accuracy and health literacy. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of women attending a breast cancer family history clinic (n = 86) was carried out, consisting of a patient survey and a validated health literacy assessment. Patients' perception of personal and population breast cancer risk was compared to actual risk as calculated by a validated risk assessment tool. RESULTS: Significant discordance between real and perceived risks was observed. The majority (83.7%) of women overestimated their personal lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, as well as that of other women of the same age (89.5%). Health literacy was considered potentially inadequate in 37.2% of patients; there was a correlation between low health literacy and increased risk perception inaccuracy across both personal ten-year (rs = 0.224, p = 0.039) and general ten-year population estimations. (rs = 0.267, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Inaccuracy in risk perception is highly prevalent in women attending a breast cancer family history clinic. Health literacy inadequacy is significantly associated with this inaccuracy.
BACKGROUND: Informed consent is an essential component of medical practice, and especially so in procedural based specialties which entail varying degrees of risk. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women, and as such is the focus of extensive research and significant media attention. Despite this, considerable misperception exists regarding the risk of developing breast cancer. AIMS: This study aims to examine the accuracy of risk perception of women attending a breast cancer family history clinic, and to explore the relationship between risk perception accuracy and health literacy. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of women attending a breast cancer family history clinic (n = 86) was carried out, consisting of a patient survey and a validated health literacy assessment. Patients' perception of personal and population breast cancer risk was compared to actual risk as calculated by a validated risk assessment tool. RESULTS: Significant discordance between real and perceived risks was observed. The majority (83.7%) of women overestimated their personal lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, as well as that of other women of the same age (89.5%). Health literacy was considered potentially inadequate in 37.2% of patients; there was a correlation between low health literacy and increased risk perception inaccuracy across both personal ten-year (rs = 0.224, p = 0.039) and general ten-year population estimations. (rs = 0.267, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Inaccuracy in risk perception is highly prevalent in women attending a breast cancer family history clinic. Health literacy inadequacy is significantly associated with this inaccuracy.
Authors: Charlotte W van Klaveren; Peter G M de Jong; Renée A Hendriks; Franka Luk; Aiko P J de Vries; Paul J M van der Boog; Marlies E J Reinders Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Beate Vajen; Magdalena Rosset; Hannah Wallaschek; Eva Baumann; Brigitte Schlegelberger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lize Hermans; Stephan Van den Broucke; Lydia Gisle; Stefaan Demarest; Rana Charafeddine Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Debbie W Chen; David Reyes-Gastelum; Lauren P Wallner; Maria Papaleontiou; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Megan R Haymart Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 6.921