| Literature DB >> 30518498 |
Rachael Jane Thorneloe1, Rob Horne2, Lucy Side3, Michael Scott Wolf4, Samuel George Smith5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Uptake of preventive therapies for breast cancer is low. We examined whether women at increased risk of breast cancer can be categorized into groups with similar medication beliefs, and whether belief group membership was prospectively associated with uptake of preventive therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women (n = 732) attending an appointment to discuss breast cancer risk were approached; 408 (55.7%) completed the Beliefs About Medicines and the Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines questionnaires. Uptake of tamoxifen at 3 months was reported in 258 (63.2%). The optimal number of belief groups were identified using latent profile analysis.Entities:
Keywords: BMQ; Breast cancer prevention; Chemoprevention; Decision-making; Medication beliefs
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30518498 PMCID: PMC6395889 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.10.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Breast Cancer ISSN: 1526-8209 Impact factor: 3.225
Demographic, Clinical, and Psychological Variables at Baseline (n = 408)
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Age | 45.30 (±7.82) |
| Children | |
| Yes | 314 (77.0) |
| No | 94 (23.0) |
| Ethnic group | |
| White | 384 (95.5) |
| Other | 18 (4.5) |
| Education level | |
| Degree or above | 176 (44.2) |
| Below degree level | 222 (55.8) |
| Health status | |
| Poor | 16 (4.0) |
| Fair | 78 (19.5) |
| Good | 240 (60.0) |
| Excellent | 66 (16.5) |
| Risk level | |
| Moderate | 243 (59.6) |
| High | 159 (39.0) |
| Unclear | 6 (1.4) |
| SES | |
| Low (most deprived) | 120 (29.9) |
| Middle | 131 (32.7) |
| High (least deprived) | 150 (37.4) |
| Employment | |
| Full-time | 348 (85.3) |
| All other employment | 60 (14.7) |
| Marital status | |
| Married or cohabiting | 298 (74.3) |
| Unmarried | 103 (25.7) |
| Specific necessity | 2.63 (±0.77) |
| Specific concerns | 3.11 (±0.60) |
| General overuse | 2.68 (±0.73) |
| General harmfulness | 2.28 (±0.61) |
| Score | 2.34 (±0.77) |
Data are presented as mean (±SD) for continuous variables and n (%) for categorical variables.
Abbreviation: SES = socioeconomic status.
Supplemental Figure 1Recruitment Flow Diagram
Univariable Comparison of Retention According to Medication Beliefs (n = 408)
| Mean (SD) | Baseline Only (n = 150) | Baseline and 3 Months (n = 258) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMQ Specific Necessity | 2.66 (0.72) | 2.61 (0.80) | .549 |
| BMQ Specific Concerns | 3.07 (0.61) | 3.14 (0.59) | .297 |
| BMQ General Overuse | 2.71 (0.72) | 2.67 (0.73) | .611 |
| BMQ General Harmfulness | 2.30 (0.58) | 2.27 (0.63) | .629 |
| PSM | 2.32 (0.80) | 2.34 (0.75) | .798 |
P value tests for significant differences between baseline and baseline and 3-month cohorts using t tests.
Abbreviations: BMQ = Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire; PSM = Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines Scale.
Beliefs About Medication and Perceived Sensitivity to its Effects for the Entire Sample and Medication Belief Groups (n = 408)
| Sample (n = 408) | Group 1 (Low Need, Lower Concerns) (62%; n = 252) | Group 2 (Low Need, Higher Concerns) (38%; n = 154) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. My current health depends on me taking tamoxifen | 19.4 | 21.4 | 16.2 |
| 2. Without tamoxifen, I could become very ill | 18.2 | 18.1 | 18.4 |
| 3. My future health depends on me taking tamoxifen | 22.1 | 25.3 | 16.9 |
| 1. Taking tamoxifen would worry me | 61.3 | 56.9 | 68.6 |
| 2. I worry about the long-term effects of tamoxifen | 72.4 | 66.3 | 82.4 |
| 3. Tamoxifen is a mystery to me | 22.6 | 17.7 | 30.5 |
| 4. Taking tamoxifen would disrupt my life | 23.8 | 21.6 | 27.3 |
| 5. I worry I would become dependent on tamoxifen | 9.2 | 6.0 | 14.5 |
| 6. Tamoxifen would give me unpleasant side effects | 56.9 | 52.0 | 64.9 |
| 1. Doctors use too many medicines | 28.9 | 10.4 | 59.1 |
| 2. Natural remedies are safer than medicines | 17.0 | 6.0 | 35.1 |
| 3. Doctors place too much trust in medicines | 14.3 | 2.0 | 34.4 |
| 4. If doctors had more time with patients they would prescribe fewer medicines | 35.3 | 16.7 | 66.0 |
| 1. People who take medicines should stop for a while every now and again | 23.7 | 10.8 | 44.8 |
| 2. Most medicines are addictive | 13.3 | 3.2 | 29.9 |
| 3. Medicines do more harm than good | 3.2 | 0.4 | 7.9 |
| 4. All medicines are poisons | 5.9 | 1.2 | 13.6 |
| 1. My body is very sensitive to medicines | 22.8 | 17.1 | 32.0 |
| 2. My body over-reacts to medicines | 8.9 | 5.2 | 14.9 |
| 3. I usually have stronger reactions to medicines than most people | 7.2 | 4.8 | 11.0 |
| 4. I have had a bad reaction to medicines in the past | 24.2 | 21.0 | 29.4 |
| 5. Even very small amounts of medicines can upset my body | 10.7 | 8.0 | 15.0 |
Data are the percentage who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement; reference category: strongly disagree, disagree, and unsure.
Abbreviations: BMQ = Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire; PSM = Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines Scale.
Correlations Between Medication Belief Variables (n = 408)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specific Necessity | – | – | – | – |
| Specific Concerns | −.040 | – | – | – |
| General Overuse | −.099 | .293 | – | – |
| General Harmfulness | −.060 | .294 | .623 | – |
| Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines | −.032 | .252 | .193 | .174 |
Data presented are Pearson correlation coefficients.
Correlation is significant at the .05 level.
Correlation is significant at the .01 level.
Model Fit Statistics for BMQ and PSM Variables (n = 406)
| Class | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Parameters | 10 | 16 | 22 | 28 | 34 |
| LL | −2090.764 | −1997.354 | −1964.527 | −1942.876 | −1931.403 |
| AIC | 4201.528 | 4026.709 | 3973.054 | 3941.752 | 3930.807 |
| BIC | 4241.592 | 4090.810 | 4061.194 | 4053.930 | 4067.023 |
| Entropy | – | 0.666 | 0.759 | 0.777 | 0.730 |
| Sample Size per Class, % (n) | – | Class 1 = 62 (252) | Class 1 = 49.3 (200) | Class 1 = 9.9 (40) | Class 1 = 17 (69) |
| VLMR-LRT | – | .0001 | .2951 | .1590 | .7835 |
| LMR-LRT | – | .0001 | .3023 | .1652 | .7856 |
Two participants had missing data for all 5 variables and were excluded from the analysis.
Abbreviations: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; BMQ = Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire; LL = log-likelihood; LMR-LRT = Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test; PSM = Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines Scale; VLMR-LRT = Vuong–Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test.
Model Fit Statistics for BMQ Variables Only (n = 406)
| Class | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Parameters | 8 | 13 | 18 | 23 | 28 |
| LL | −1632.263 | −1546.829 | −1520.696 | −1498.641 | −1492.457 |
| AIC | 3280.526 | 3119.659 | 3077.391 | 3043.283 | 3040.914 |
| BIC | 3312.576 | 3171.741 | 3149.505 | 3135.429 | 3153.092 |
| Entropy | – | 0.661 | 0.706 | 0.815 | 0.790 |
| Sample Size per Class, % (n) | – | Class 1 = 61.3 (249) | Class 1 = 12 (49) | Class 1 = 60.1 (244) | Class 1 = 26.4 (107) |
| VLMR-LRT | – | .0000 | .1910 | .0638 | .4124 |
| LMR-LRT | – | .0001 | .1990 | .0673 | .4194 |
Two participants had missing data for all 4 variables and were excluded from the analysis.
Abbreviations: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; BMQ = Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire; LL = log-likelihood; LMR-LRT = Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test; VLMR-LRT = Vuong–Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test.
Model Fit Statistics for BMQ and PSM Variables, for Baseline and 3 Months (n = 258)
| Class | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Parameters | 10 | 16 | 22 | 28 | 34 |
| LL | −1343.119 | −1281.764 | −1257.355 | −1232.145 | −1222.712 |
| AIC | 2706.238 | 2595.527 | 2558.710 | 2520.291 | 2513.423 |
| BIC | 2741.767 | 2652.374 | 2636.875 | 2619.774 | 2634.224 |
| Entropy | – | 0.719 | 0.758 | 0.852 | 0.862 |
| Sample size per class (%; n) | – | Class 1 = 70 (180) | Class 1 = 50 (129) | Class 1 = 11.6 (30) | Class 1 = 11.6 (30) |
| VLMR-LRT | – | .0019 | .2136 | .1444 | .7560 |
| LMR-LRT | – | .0022 | .2215 | .1500 | .7598 |
Two participants had missing data for all 4 variables and were excluded from the analysis.
Abbreviations: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; BMQ = Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire; LL = log-likelihood; LMR-LRT = Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test; PSM = Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines Scale; VLMR-LRT = Vuong–Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test.
Figure 1Sample Means [95% CI] of Medication Beliefs for the 2-Class Solution (n = 406). Chart Shows Differences in Medication Beliefs Between Group 1 (Low Need, Lower Concerns) and Group 2 (Low Need, Higher Concerns)
Medication Belief Group Membership According to Participant Characteristics and Univariable and Multivariable Logistic Regression Model (n = 406)
| Group 2: Low Need, Higher Concerns, n (%) | Univariable | Multivariable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | ||||
| ≤35 years | 16 (39) | 0.70 (0.34-1.46) | .346 | 0.65 (0.28-1.56) | .337 |
| 36-49 years | 87 (33.7) | 0.56 (0.35-0.88) | 0.56 (0.34-0.93) | ||
| ≥50 years | 51 (47.7) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Yes | 115 (36.6) | 0.79 (0.49-1.26) | .317 | 0.88 (0.49-1.57) | .653 |
| No | 39 (42.4) | Ref | Ref | ||
| White | 140 (36.5) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Other | 11 (61.1) | 2.74 (1.04-7.23) | 2.40 (0.81-7.14) | .117 | |
| Degree or above | 58 (33) | 0.74 (0.49-1.11) | .143 | 0.71 (0.44-1.13) | .148 |
| Below degree level | 89 (40.1) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Poor | 8 (50) | 1.64 (0.55-4.92) | .378 | 1.50 (0.43-5.25) | .526 |
| Fair | 38 (48.7) | 1.56 (0.80-3.04) | .192 | 1.32 (0.64-2.72) | .457 |
| Good | 80 (33.3) | 0.82 (0.47-1.44) | .491 | 0.69 (0.38-1.27) | .234 |
| Excellent | 25 (37.9) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Moderate | 96 (39.7) | 1.20 (0.79-1.81) | .395 | 1.41 (0.89-2.23) | .144 |
| High | 56 (35.4) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Unclear | 2 (33.3) | – | – | ||
| Low (most deprived) | 56 (47.1) | 1.63 (0.99-2.66) | .052 | 1.20(0.69-2.08) | .525 |
| Middle | 43 (32.8) | 0.89 (0.55-1.47) | .658 | 0.77 (0.45-1.33) | .352 |
| High (least deprived) | 53 (35.3) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Full-time | 125 (35.9) | Ref | Ref | ||
| All other employment | 29 (50) | 1.78 (1.02-3.12) | 1.39 (0.74-2.62) | .313 | |
| Married or cohabiting | 100 (33.6) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Unmarried | 51 (49.5) | 1.94 (1.23-3.06) | 1.63(0.96-2.76) | .071 | |
Bold P values indicate statistical significance P < .05.
Abbreviation: OR = odds ratio; Ref = reference; SES = socioeconomic status.
Category not included in univariable and multivariable analyses because of insufficient cases. The multivariable model included 379 respondents.
Uptake of Tamoxifen According to Clinic Setting (n = 258)
| Clinic Setting | Uptake of Tamoxifen, % (n) |
|---|---|
| Genetics | 6.7 (1/15) |
| Breast Clinic | 6.9 (2/29) |
| Family History | 15.5 (28/181) |
| Family History Clinic and Genetics | 21.2 (7/33) |
Uptake of Tamoxifen According to Participant Characteristics and Univariable and Multivariable Logistic Regression Model (n = 258)
| Uptake, n (%) | Univariable | Multivariable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | ||||
| ≤35 Years | 1 (3.8) | – | – | ||
| 36-49 Years | 29 (17.3) | 1.46 (0.63-3.39) | .378 | 1.19 (0.44-3.18) | .731 |
| ≥50 Years | 8 (12.5) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Yes | 36 (17.6) | 5.43 (1.26-23.34) | 3.66 (0.76-17.64) | .106 | |
| No | 2 (3.8) | Ref | Ref | ||
| White | 37 (15) | – | – | – | – |
| Other | 1 (11.1) | – | – | – | – |
| Degree or above | 20 (17.2) | 1.41 (0.71-2.82) | .327 | 1.50 (0.66-3.42) | .335 |
| Below degree level | 18 (12.9) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Poor | 0 | – | – | ||
| Fair | 5 (10.6) | 0.68 (0.20-2.32) | .538 | 0.53 (0.13-2.13) | .372 |
| Good | 25 (16.6) | 1.13 (0.46-2.82) | .787 | 0.97 (0.37-2.60) | .958 |
| Excellent | 7 (14.9) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Moderate | 24 (15.1) | 1.05 (0.52-2.15) | .885 | 0.84 (0.38-1.82) | .651 |
| High | 14 (14.4) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Unclear | 0 | – | |||
| Low (most deprived) | 7 (11.9) | 0.78 (0.30-2.03) | .613 | 1.23 (0.44-3.39) | .695 |
| Middle | 14 (16.3) | 1.13 (0.52-2.47) | .759 | 1.38(0.57-3.33) | .479 |
| High (least deprived) | 16 (14.7) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Full-time | 32 (14.5) | Ref | Ref | ||
| All other employment | 6 (16.2) | 1.14 (0.44-2.96) | .783 | 1.82 (0.63-5.22) | .269 |
| Married or cohabiting | 33 (16.7) | 2.16 (0.80-5.81) | .127 | 1.47 (0.44-4.93) | .534 |
| Unmarried | 5 (8.5) | Ref | Ref | ||
| Group 1 (low need, lower concerns) | 33 (18.3) | 3.28 (1.23-8.75) | 3.37 (1.08-10.51) | ||
| Group 2 (low need, higher concerns) | 5 (6.4) | Ref | Ref | ||
Bold P values indicate statistical significance P < .05.
Abbreviations: OR = odds ratio; Ref = reference; SES = socioeconomic status.
Category not included in univariable and multivariable analyses because of insufficient cases; the multivariable model included 213 respondents.