The Angelina effect: Immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 16, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 516-521

  Borzekowski, Dina L G ^a   Guan, Yue ^b   Smith, Katherine C ^b   Erby, Lori H ^b   Roter, Debra L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

BRAC1 2; Breast cancer; Celebrity health narratives; Health communication

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURGERY; DOUBLE MASTECTOMY; FAMILIAL CANCER; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC RISK; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION SEEKING; MALE; MASTECTOMY; NORMAL HUMAN; ONLINE SYSTEM; OVARY CANCER; RECALL; THINKING; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENE; ADOLESCENT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; ELECTIVE SURGERY; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETICS; HEALTH SERVICE; MASS MEDIUM; MIDDLE AGED; MUTATION; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PUBLIC FIGURE; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; UTILIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA1 PROTEIN, HUMAN;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRCA1 PROTEIN; BREAST NEOPLASMS; ELECTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; FAMOUS PERSONS; FEMALE; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC TESTING; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; MALE; MASS MEDIA; MASTECTOMY; MIDDLE AGED; MUTATION; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK ASSESSMENT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84896506162     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.181     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Cram P, Fendrick AM, Inadomi J, Cowen ME, Carpenter D, Vijan S. The impact of a celebrity promotional campaign on the use of colon cancer screening: the Katie Couric effect. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1601-1605.
2. Beck CS, Aubuchon SM, McKenna TP, Ruhl S, Simmons N. Blurring personal health and public priorities: an analysis of celebrity health narratives in the public sphere. Health Commun 2013.
3. Chapman S, McLeod K, Wakefield M, Holding S. Impact of news of celebrity illness on breast cancer screening: Kylie Minogue's breast cancer diagnosis. Med J Aust 2005;183:247-250.
4. Larson RJ, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Celebrity endorsements of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:693-695.
5. Kelaher M, Cawson J, Miller J, et al. Use of breast cancer screening and treatment services by Australian women aged 25-44 years following Kylie Minogue's breast cancer diagnosis. Int J Epid 2008;37:1326-1332.
6. Nattinger AB, Hoffmann RG, Howell-Pelz A, Goodwin JS. Effect of Nancy Reagan's mastectomy on choice of surgery for breast cancer by US women. JAMA 1998;279:762-766.
7. Brown WJ, Basil MD. Media celebrities and public health: responses to 'Magic' Johnson's HIV disclosure and its impact on AIDS risk and high-risk behaviors. Health Commun 1995;7:345-370.
8. Kreps GJ. The impact of communication on cancer risk, incidence, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Health Commun 2003;15:161-169.
9. Niederdeppe J. Beyond knowledge gaps: examining sociodemographic differences in response to cancer news. Human Communication Research. 2008;34:423-447.
10. Dentzer S. Communicating medical news - pitfalls of health care journalism. NEJM 2009;360:1-3.
11. Greenslade R. Angelina Jolie illustrates the virtues of celebrity power. The Guardian 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/may/15/ angelinajolie-breast-cancer.Accessed10July2013.
12. HINTS 2005. HINTS Instrument. http://hints.cancer.gov/docs/HINTS-2005- Instrument-English.pdf.Accessed14September2013.
13. 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.
14. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of earlyonset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994;73:643-651.
15. Berliner JL, Fay AM, Cummings SA, Burnett B, Tillmanns T. NSGC practice guideline: risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 2013;22:155-163.
16. Lipkus IM, Kuchibhatla M, McBride CM, et al. Relationships among breast cancer perceived absolute risk, comparative risk, and worries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:973-975.
17. 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.
18. Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Lubinski J, et al.; Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 2008;122:2017-2022.
19. Den Heijer M, van Asperen CJ, Harris H, et al. International variation in physicians' attitudes towards prophylactic mastectomy - comparison between France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Eur J Cancer. 2013 doi:pii: S0959-8049(13)00359-6. 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.04.025 (Epub ahead of print).
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: evaluating direct-to-consumer marketing- -Atlanta, Denver, Raleigh-Durham, and Seattle, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004;53:603-606.
21. Bowen DJ, Harris J, Jorgensen CM, Myers MF, Kuniyuki A. Socioeconomic influences on the effects of a genetic testing direct-to-consumer marketing campaign. Public Health Genomics 2010;13:131-142.
22. Larsson A, Oxman AD, Carling C, Herrin J. Medical messages in the media- barriers and solutions to improving medical journalism. Health Expect 2003;6:323-331.
23. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, DC, 2006.
24. Mouchawar J, Hensley-Alford S, Laurion S, et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing on genetic services at a managed care organization: a naturally-occurring experiment. Genet Med 2005;7:191-197.
25. Hall IJ, Burke W, Coughlin S, Lee NC. Population-based estimates of the prevalence of family history of cancer among women. Community Genet 2001;4:134-142.
26. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Neyman N, Altekruse SF, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2010, National Cancer Institute: Bethesda, MD. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975-2010/.Accessed14September2013.
27. Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 2003;72:1117-1130.
28. Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, et al.; EMBRACE. Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:812-822.