The Angelina effect revisited: Exploring a media-related impact on public awareness

Cancer

Volumn 121, Issue 22, 2015, Pages 3959-3964

  Lebo, Patricia Beatrice ^a   Quehenberger, Franz ^a   Kamolz, Lars Peter ^a   Lumenta, David Benjamin ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

breast cancer; celebrity announcement; mastectomy; media related effect; plastic surgery; prospective; reconstructive surgery; survey

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOTRANSPLANTATION; BREAST AUGMENTATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASS MEDIUM; MASTECTOMY; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLIC FIGURE; ADOLESCENT; AWARENESS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; GENETICS; MIDDLE AGED; MUTATION; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AWARENESS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA; FEMALE; GENES, BRCA1; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; MASTECTOMY; MIDDLE AGED; MUTATION;

EID: 84946500365     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29461     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Kluger J, Park A., The Angelina effect. Time. 2013; 180: 28-33.
2. Jolie A., My medical choice. New York Times. May 13, 2013: A25.
3. Kamenova K, Reshef A, Caulfield T., Angelina Jolie's faulty gene: newspaper coverage of a celebrity's preventive bilateral mastectomy in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Genet Med. 2014; 16: 522-528.
4. Sirohi B, Sinha N, Goel NS, Badwe RA., Angelina's choice: private decision, public impact. Indian J Med Ethics. 2014; 11: 34-35.
5. Borzekowski D, Guan Y, Smith K, Erby L, Roter D., The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public. Genet Med. 2014; 16: 516-521.
6. Evans DG, Graham J, O'Connell S, Arnold S, Fitzsimmons D., Familial breast cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2013; 346: f3829.
7. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2013-2014. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2013.
8. Phillips DP,. The influence of suggestion on suicide: substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. Am Soc Rev. 1974; 39: 340-354.
9. Ziegler W, Hegerl U., The Werther effect. Significance, mechanisms, consequences [in German]. Nervenarzt. 2002; 73: 41-49.
10. Groopman J., Annals of medicine: the Reeve effect. The New Yorker. 2003; 79: 82-93.
11. Evans DG, Barwell J, Eccles DM, et al., The Angelina Jolie effect: how high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services. Breast Cancer Res. 2014; 16: 442.
12. Cameron AM, Massie AB, Alexander CE, et al., Social media and organ donor registration: the Facebook effect. Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 2059-2065.
13. Statistics Austria. Austria. Data. Figures. Facts. Vienna, Austria: Statistics Austria; 2013: 76.
14. McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR., Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol Methods. 2004; 9: 403-425.
15. Raphael J, Verma S, Hewitt P, Eisen A., The impact of Angelina Jolie's (AJ) story on genetic referral and testing at an academic cancer centre [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32:Pages.
16. Reeves B, Nass C., The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
17. Alderman AK, Hawley ST, Waljee J, Mujahid M, Morrow M, Katz SJ., Understanding the impact of breast reconstruction on the surgical decision-making process for breast cancer. Cancer. 2008; 112: 489-494.
18. Katz SJ, Hawley ST, Abrahamse P, et al., Does it matter where you go for breast surgery?: attending surgeon's influence on variation in receipt of mastectomy for breast cancer. Med Care. 2010; 48: 892-899.
19. Stacey DH, Spring MA, Breslin TM, Rao VK, Gutowski KA., Exploring the effect of the referring general surgeon's attitudes on breast reconstruction utilization. WMJ. 2008; 107: 292-297.
20. Alderman AK, Hawley ST, Waljee J, Morrow M, Katz SJ., Correlates of referral practices of general surgeons to plastic surgeons for mastectomy reconstruction. Cancer. 2007; 109: 1715-1720.
21. Hawley ST, Hofer TP, Janz NK, et al., Correlates of between-surgeon variation in breast cancer treatments. Med Care. 2006; 44: 609-616.
22. Kling RE, Nayar HS, Harhay MO, et al., The scope of plastic surgery according to 2434 allopathic medical students in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014; 133: 947-956.
23. Agarwal JP, Mendenhall SD, Moran LA, Hopkins PN., Medical student perceptions of the scope of plastic and reconstructive surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2013; 70: 343-349.
24. Kim DC, Kim S, Mitra A., Perceptions and misconceptions of the plastic and reconstructive surgeon. Ann Plast Surg. 1997; 38: 426-430.
25. Cordeiro PG., Breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 1590-1601.
26. Thiruchelvam PT, McNeill F, Jallali N, Harris P, Hogben K., Post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. BMJ. 2013; 347: f5903.
27. Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, de Blacam C, et al., The impact of nipple reconstruction on patient satisfaction in breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012; 69: 389-393.
28. Ashraf AA, Colakoglu S, Nguyen JT, et al., Patient involvement in the decision-making process improves satisfaction and quality of life in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Surg Res. 2013; 184: 665-670.
29. Ho AL, Klassen AF, Cano S, Scott AM, Pusic AL., Optimizing patient-centered care in breast reconstruction: the importance of preoperative information and patient-physician communication. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 132: 212e-220e.
30. Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D., Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ. 2013; 346: f2614.
31. Graffigna G, Barello S, Riva G., Technologies for patient engagement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32: 1172.