Deciding on breast cancer risk reduction: The role of counseling in individual decision-making - A qualitative study

Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study

OBJECTIVES

Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards.

DESIGN

Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1).

SETTING

Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included.

METHODS

Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories.

RESULTS

Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider's information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the necessity that patients' experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients' information engagement into types.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01399359.

Understanding low chemoprevention uptake by women at high risk of breast cancer: findings from a qualitative inductive study of women's risk-reduction experiences

BACKGROUND

Chemoprevention is one of several methods that have been developed to help high-risk women reduce their risk of breast cancer. Reasons for the low uptake of chemoprevention are poorly understood. This paper seeks a deeper understanding of this phenomenon by drawing on women's own narratives about their awareness of chemoprevention and their risk-related experiences.

METHODS

This research is based on a parent project that included fifty in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of African American and White women at elevated risk of breast cancer. This specific study draws on the forty-seven interviews conducted with women at high or severe risk of breast cancer, all of whom are eligible to use chemoprevention for breast cancer risk-reduction. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory methods.

RESULTS

Forty-five percent of participants, and only 21% of African American participants, were aware of chemoprevention options. Women who had seen specialists were more likely to be aware, particularly if they had ongoing specialist access. Aware and unaware women relied on different types of sources for prevention-related information. Those whose main source of information was a healthcare provider were more likely to know about chemoprevention. Aware women used more nuanced information gathering strategies and worried more about cancer. Women simultaneously considered all risk-reduction options they knew about. Those who knew about chemoprevention but were reluctant to use it felt this way for multiple reasons, having to do with potential side effects, perceived extreme-ness of the intervention, similarity to chemotherapy, unknown information about chemoprevention, and reluctance to take medications in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of chemoprevention awareness is a critical gap in women's ability to make health-protective choices. Future research in this field must consider complexities in both women's perspectives on chemoprevention and the reasons they are reluctant to use it.

Attitudes towards Risk Prediction in a Help Seeking Population of Early Detection Centers for Mental Disorders-A Qualitative Approach

Big Data approaches raise hope for a paradigm shift towards illness prevention, while others are concerned about discrimination resulting from these approaches. This will become particularly important for people with mental disorders, as research on medical risk profiles and early detection progresses rapidly. This study aimed to explore views and attitudes towards risk prediction in people who, for the first time, sought help at one of three early detection centers for mental disorders in Germany (Cologne, Munich, Dresden). A total of 269 help-seekers answered an open-ended question on the potential use of risk prediction. Attitudes towards risk prediction and motives for its approval or rejection were categorized inductively and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The anticipated impact on self-determination was a driving decision component, regardless of whether a person would decide for or against risk prediction. Results revealed diverse, sometimes contrasting, motives for both approval and rejection (e.g., the desire to control of one’s life as a reason for and against risk prediction). Knowledge about a higher risk as a potential psychological burden was one of the major reasons against risk prediction. The decision to make use of risk prediction is expected to have far-reaching effects on the quality of life and self-perception of potential users. Healthcare providers should empower those seeking help by carefully considering individual expectations and perceptions of risk prediction.

Finding the five-year window: A qualitative study examining young women's decision-making and experience of using tamoxifen to reduce BRCA1/2 breast cancer risk

OBJECTIVE

Tamoxifen has been demonstrated to reduce breast cancer risk in high-risk, premenopausal women. Yet, very few young women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome in Australia use tamoxifen, despite this being a less-invasive option compared to risk-reducing mastectomy. This study aims to examine young women's decision-making about and experience of taking tamoxifen to reduce their breast cancer risk.

METHODS

Young women with a BRCA1/2 mutation participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews, recruited mainly from a metropolitan clinical genetics service. Data were analysed using an inductive, team-based approach to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Forty interviews with women aged 20-40 years with a BRCA1/2 mutation were conducted. Eleven women could not recall discussing tamoxifen with their healthcare provider or were too young to commence cancer risk management. Twenty-three women chose not to use tamoxifen because it is contraindicated for pregnancy or because it did not offer immediate and great enough risk reduction compared to bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Six women who were definite about not wanting to have children during the following 5-year period chose to use tamoxifen, and most experienced none or transient side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision-making about tamoxifen was nuanced and informed by considerations characteristic of young adulthood, especially childbearing. Therefore, clinical discussions about tamoxifen with young women with a BRCA1/2 mutation must include consideration of their reproductive plans.

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.

Cancer Prevention in Primary Care: Perception of Importance, Recognition of Risk Factors and Prescribing Behaviors

PURPOSE

Acceptability and uptake of cancer preventive interventions is associated with physician recommendation, which is dependent on physician familiarity with available preventive options. The goal of this study is to evaluate cancer prevention perceptions, understanding of breast and ovarian cancer risk factors, and prescribing behaviors of primary care physicians.

METHODS

We conducted cross-sectional. Web-based survey of 750 primary care physicians (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) in the United States. Survey respondents were recruited from an opt-in health care provider panel.

RESULTS

Perception of importance and the practice of recommending general and cancer-specific preventive screenings and interventions significantly differed by provider type. These perceptions and behaviors reflected the demographics of the population that the primary care physicians see within their respective practices. The majority of respondents recognized genetic/hereditary risk factors for breast or ovarian cancer, while epidemiologic or clinical risk factors were less frequently recognized. Prescribing behaviors were related to familiarity with the interventions, with physicians indicating that they more frequently reinforced a specialist's recommendation rather than prescribed a preventive intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer prevention perceptions, recognition of cancer risk factors, and prescribing behaviors differ among practice types and were related to familiarity with preventive options. Cancer prevention education and risk assessment resources should be more widely available to primary care physicians.

Understanding Decision Making about Breast Cancer Prevention in Action: The Intersection of Perceived Risk, Perceived Control, and Social Context: NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1

BACKGROUND

Literature on decision making about breast cancer prevention focuses on individual perceptions and attitudes that predict chemoprevention use, rather than the process by which women decide whether to take risk-reducing medications. This secondary analysis aimed to understand how women's perceptions of breast cancer risk and locus of control influence their decision making.

METHODS

Women were accrued as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1, a study aimed at understanding contributors to chemoprevention uptake. Thirty women participated in qualitative in-depth interviews after being counseled about chemoprevention. Deductive codes grouped women based on dimensions of risk perception and locus of control. We used a constant comparative method to make connections among inductive themes focused on decision making, deductive codes for perceived risk and perceived locus of control, and the influence of explanatory models within and across participants.

RESULTS

Participants were predominantly non-Hispanic white (63%), with an average age of 50.9 years. Decision making varied across groups: the high-perceived risk/high-perceived control group used "social evidence" to model the behaviors of others. High-perceived risk/low-perceived control women made decisions based on beliefs about treatment, rooted in the experiences of social contacts. The low-perceived risk/low-perceived control group interpreted signs of risk as part of the normal continuum of bodily changes in comparison to others. Low-perceived risk/high-perceived control women focused on maintaining a current healthy trajectory.

CONCLUSION

"Social evidence" plays an important role in the decision-making process that is distinct from emotional aspects. Attending to patients' perceptions of risk and control in conjunction with social context is key to caring for patients at high risk in a way that is evidence based and sensitive to patient preferences.

NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project-1 Results: Decision Making in Breast Cancer Risk Reduction

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) reduce breast cancer risk. Adoption of SERMs as prevention medication remains low. This is the first study to quantify social, cultural, and psychologic factors driving decision making regarding SERM use in women counseled on breast cancer prevention options. A survey study was conducted with women counseled by a health care provider (HCP) about SERMs. A statistical comparison of responses was performed between those who decided to use and those who decided not to use SERMs. Independent factors associated with the decision were determined using logistic regression. Of 1,023 participants, 726 made a decision: 324 (44.6%) decided to take a SERM and 402 (55.4%) decided not to. The most important factor for deciding on SERM use was the HCP recommendation. Other characteristics associated with the decision included attitudes and perceptions regarding medication intake, breast cancer worry, trust in HCP, family members with blood clots, and others' experiences with SERMs. The odds of SERM intake when HCP recommended were higher for participants with a positive attitude toward taking medications than for those with a negative attitude (P_interaction = 0.01). This study highlights the importance of social and cultural aspects for SERM decision making, most importantly personal beliefs and experiences. HCPs' recommendations play a statistically significant role in decision making and are more likely to be followed if in line with patients' attitudes. Results indicate the need for developing interventions for HCPs that not only focus on the presentation of medical information but, equally as important, on addressing patients' beliefs and experiences. Cancer Prev Res; 10(11); 625-34. ©2017 AACRSee related editorial by Crew, p. 609.