The Relation Between Projected Breast Cancer Risk, Perceived Cancer Risk, and Mammography Use

Department of Medicine, Sections of General Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 02/2006; 21(2):158-64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00312.x
Source: PubMed


In summary, we found that routine mammography is underused at the national level. Although it is reassuring that women with the highest breast cancer risk were more likely to report routine mammography use than low risk women, there is substantial room for improvement in this population as 1 in 4 women in the highest group did not report routine mammography use. We also found that perceived risk was independently associated with routine mammography use, and that among women with increased projected cancer risk, white women were more likely to report increased perceived risk than Black or Hispanic women. While family history of breast cancer was strongly associated with perceived cancer risk, other risk factors such as age at first menarche, obesity, or prior abnormal mammography were either weakly related or unrelated to perceived risk. Our results suggest that when clinicians approach patients to discuss the use of mammography, it is important not only to convey risk estimates to patients, but also to ascertain their understanding of their risk and how they incorporate their risk preceptions into their plan of care. Particularly as the concept of tailoring screening strategies based on individualized risk profiles gain momentum, our results underscore the importance of patient education and communication. Once women are motivated to return for regular mammography, informed of how mammography can help them, and are able to access the health care system, they will then be able to receive the benefit promised by evidence and guidelines.

Download full-text


Available from: Giovanni Filardo,
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pharmaceutical companies utilize Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising to generate consumer discussions with physicians and increase prescriptions. The dissertation seeks to answer a question not fully addressed in the literature: which consumers respond to DTC by intending to discuss the message with their doctor and why? Five hundred and twenty four respondents between the ages of thirty and fifty-five provided information about their opinion of DTC advertising, previous DTC-initiated discussion experience, personality characteristics, and health behaviors as well as information related to elevated cholesterol, treatment strategies, and level of concern. The investigator evaluated nine hypotheses including that intent to discuss DTC messages with physicians would be significantly higher in individuals for whom the medical condition is highly self-relevant and whose regulatory focus is promotion, compared to those whose regulatory focus is prevention, with this difference most apparent when benefits and risks were both perceived as high. Other evaluated factors include impact on discussion intent of consumers’ proactivity in addressing their health, relationships with health professionals, and personality characteristics. Self-relevance was measured as the level of concern regarding respondent’s personal cholesterol level. Regulatory focus of respondents was determined using the eleven-item Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, and a health-specific question. Respondents were randomly assigned in a 2 (high or low self-relevance) x 2 (promotion or prevention) x 2 (message A or B) design to view a non-product written message with either promotion or prevention framing and one of two product-specific television advertisements. Intent to discuss messages and ads was measured on a 5-point scale from very low to very high. Results indicate that high self-relevance is associated with higher discussion intent. Promotion-focused consumers are more responsive to benefit messages and tolerant of product risks. Prevention-focused consumers have lower discussion intent due to greater sensitivity to drug risks. Discussions are more likely when consumers take a proactive approach to health and have trusting physician and pharmacist relationships. Previous discussion experience predisposes one to future discussions. Personality characteristics are of limited significance with regard to discussion intent. The results raise questions regarding the current FDA requirements for communication of risk information. Future research opportunities are identified. Ph.D. Health Services Organization and Policy and Business Admin University of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Women that have a first-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer at an early age are at increased risk of the disease, yet they often lack information about their personal risk of breast cancer and early detection measures. An intervention to provide objective risk information, reduce worries, and promote screening and healthy behaviors was developed. In 1999-2002, a randomized pre-post design was used to test a tailored telephone counseling intervention with a sample of 163 women whose sisters were diagnosed with breast cancer at age 50 or younger in the San Francisco Bay Area. Participants were interviewed by telephone regarding their breast cancer risk factors, perceived risk, worries, lifestyle factors, and screening behavior. A modified Gail model was used to compute an objective measure of individualized lifetime risk. Risk overestimates averaged 25 percentage points. The intervention was effective in reducing overestimates in women age 50 and over but not in those under 50. The intervention was effective in increasing physical activity and reinforcing the conviction to maintain good breast health, but not in decreasing worries or increasing screening. Telephone counseling appears to be a viable tool for reducing risk overestimates and promoting healthy behaviors among sisters of women with breast cancer.
    Preventive Medicine 12/2006; 43(5):379-84. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.07.002 · 3.09 Impact Factor

  • Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 02/2007; 65(1):31-5. DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.015 · 5.37 Impact Factor
Show more