A focus group study on breast cancer risk presentation: One format does not fit all

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 719-724

  Dorval, Michel ^a,b   Bouchard, Karine ^b   Chiquette, Jocelyne ^b   Glendon, Gord ^c   Maugard, Christine M ^d,e   Dubuisson, Wilhelm ^b   Panchal, Seema ^c,f   Simard, Jacques ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^b LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF STRASBOURG   (France)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

breast neoplasm; health communication; preferences; probabilities; qualitative research; risk assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANADA; CANCER RISK; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; FIRST DEGREE RELATIVE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANADA; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84879419134     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: 14765438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.248     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Weitzel JN, Blazer KR, Macdonald DJ, Culver JO, Offit K: Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: state of the art and future directions in the era of personalized medicine. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 327-359.
2. Anothaisintawee T, Teerawattananon Y, Wiratkapun C, Kasamesup V, Thakkinstian A: Risk prediction models of breast cancer: a systematic review of model performances. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 133: 1-10.
3. Meads C, Ahmed I, Riley RD: A systematic review of breast cancer incidence risk prediction models with meta-analysis of their performance. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 132: 365-377.
4. Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG: Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 680-691.
5. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Shah M, Brawley OW: Cancer screening in the United States, 2011: a review of current American Cancer Society Guidelines and Issues in Cancer Screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 8-30.
6. Sivell S, Elwyn G, Gaff C et al: How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: Systematic Review. J Genet Couns 2008; 17: 30-63.
7. Davison C, Smith GD, Frankel S: Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: the implications of coronary candidacy for health education. Sociol Health Ill 1991; 13: 1-19.
8. Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J et al: The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer 2008; 98: 1457-1466.
9. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PPD, Smith P, Easton DF: The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 1580-1590.
10. Wacholder S, Hartge P, Prentice R et al: Performance of common genetic variants in breast-cancer risk models. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 986-993.
11. Julian-Reynier C, Welkenhuysen M, Hagoel L, Decruyenaere M, Hopwood P: Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J Hum Genet 2003; 11: 725-736.
12. Edwards A, Gray J, Clarke A et al: Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 71: 4-25.
13. Krueger R, Casey MA: Focus Groups, a Pratical Guide for Applied Research, 4th edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009.
14. Cull A, Anderson EDC, Campbell S, Mackay J, Smyth E, Steel M: The impact of genetic counselling about breast cancer risk on women's risk perceptions and levels of distress. Br J Cancer 1999; 79: 501-508.
15. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Chan L, Jackson R, Wells S, Kenealy T: Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Ann Fam Med 2008; 6: 213-217.
16. Vahabi M: The impact of health communication on health-related decision making A review of evidence. Health Educ 2007; 107: 27-41.
17. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R: Presenting risk information: a review of the effects of framing and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 2001; 6: 61-82.
18. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG: The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 966-972.
19. Hutson SP: Attitudes and psychological impact of genetic testing, genetic counseling, and breast cancer risk assessment among women at increased risk. Oncol Nurs Forum 2003; 30: 241-246.
20. Austin J: Re-conceptualizing risk in genetic counseling: implications for clinical practice. J Genet Couns 2010; 19: 228-234.
21. Safeer RS, Keenan J: Health literacy: the gap between physicians and patients. Am Fam Physician 2005; 72: 463-468.
22. Wright AJ, Whitwell SC, Takeichi C, Hankins M, Marteau TM: The impact of numeracy on reactions to different graphic risk presentation formats: an experimental analogue study. Br J Health Psychol 2009; 14: 107-125.
23. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF: How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull 2009; 135: 943-973.
24. Statistics Canada: Building on our Competencies: Canadian Results of the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey [Catalogue no. 89-617-XIE], 2003.
25. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R: Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 462-468.
26. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK: General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 37-44.
27. Davids SL, Schapira MM, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB: Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19: 310-315.
28. Lobb EA, Butow PN, Meiser B et al: Women's preferences and consultants' communication of risk in consultations about familial breast cancer: impact on patient outcomes. J Med Genet 2003; 40: e56.
29. Pieterse AH, van Dulmen S, van Dijk S, Bensing JM, Ausems MG: Risk communication in completed series of breast cancer genetic counseling visits. Genet Med 2006; 8: 688-696.
30. Welkenhuysen M, Evers-Kiebooms G, d'Ydewalle G: The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Educ Couns 2001; 43: 179-187.
31. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB: Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13: 608-618.
32. Dolan J: The importance of form, content, and context in the design and effectiveness of risk communication methods. Cancer Prev Res 2010; 3, Abstract # CN15-03; doi:10.1158/1940-6207-10-CN15-03.
33. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M: How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25: 1323-1329.
34. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL: The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun 2006; 11: 569-582.
35. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A: The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73: 448-455.
36. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG: The Visual Communication of Risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 149-163.
37. Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN: Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 354-366.
38. Noar SM, Mehrotra P: Toward a new methodological paradigm for testing theories of health behavior and health behavior change. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 82: 468-474.
39. Phipps S, Zinn AB, Opitz JM, Reynolds JF: Psychological response to amniocentesis: II. Effects of coping style. Am J Med Genet, 1986; 25: 143-148.
40. Bottorff JL, Ratner PA, Johnson JL, Lovato CY, Joab SA: Communicating cancer risk information: the challenges of uncertainty. Patient Educ Couns 1998; 33: 67-81.
41. Vernon SW: Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 101.
42. Miller SM: Monitoring versus blunting styles of coping with cancer influence the information patients want and need about their disease. Implications for cancer screening and management. Cancer 1995; 76: 167-177.
43. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 349-357.
44. Ortendahl M, Fries JF: Framing health messages based on anomalies in time preference. Med Sci Monit 2005; 11: RA253-RA256.
45. Brown SM, Culver JO, Osann KE et al: Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates. Patient Educ Couns 2011; 83: 92-98.
46. Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, Marteau TM: Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann Fam Med 2004; 2: 583-594.
47. Ellington L, Kelly KM, Reblin M, Latimer S, Roter D: Communication in genetic counseling: cognitive and emotional processing. Health Commun 2011; 26: 667-675.
48. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP et al: Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for White females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81: 1879-1886.
49. Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA: Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 358-366.
50. Gail MH, Mai PL: Comparing breast cancer risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 665-668.