What women think: cancer causal attributions in a diverse sample of women

What Causes Cancer in Women with a gBRCA Pathogenic Variant? Counselees' Causal Attributions and Associations with Perceived Control

Laypersons have a strong need to explain critical life events, such as the development of an illness. Expert explanations do not always match the beliefs of patients. We therefore assessed causal attributions made by women with a pathogenic germline variant in BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2-PV), both with and without a cancer diagnosis. We assumed that attributions would be associated with the control experience. We conducted a cross-sectional study of N = 101 women with a gBRCA1/2-PV (mean age 43.3 ± 10.9). Women answered self-report questionnaires on perceived causes and control. Most women (97%) named genes as a causal factor for the development of cancer. Surprisingly, the majority of women also named stress and health behavior (both 81%), environment (80%), and personality (61%). Women with a cancer diagnosis tended to endorse more causes. The attributions to personality (ρ = 0.39, p < 0.01) health behavior (ρ = 0.44, p < 0.01), and environment (ρ = 0.22, p < 0.05) were significantly associated with personal control, whereas attribution to genes showed a small, albeit significant association with treatment control (ρ = 0.20, p < 0.05). Discussing causal beliefs in clinical counseling may provide a “window of opportunity” in which risk factors and health behaviors could be better addressed and individually targeted.

Causal health attributes and beliefs of tobacco-related cancer patients in Assam, India

PURPOSE

People with chronic illness develop their own formulations about the disease and these attributions influence their health beliefs and subsequent health practices. This study explores the causal health beliefs and practices of tobacco-related cancer patients in the state of Assam considering their unique cultural health practices. The study uses Kleinman's Explanatory Model for an extensive understanding of the patient's health beliefs about their illness.

METHODS

By adopting Explanatory Sequential Mixed design, 100 participants were interviewed in the quantitative phase of the study followed by 11 in-depth interviews in the qualitative phase.

RESULTS

The study reveals that, among different factors internal and/or external to an individual, the participants highly attributed their illness to accidental/chance and/or supernatural factors (52%). Also, cancer fatalism was highly prevalent among the participants. Further, the majority of the participants with wrong beliefs, misinformation, and fear of cancer were uncertain about the success of their cancer-specific treatment. These participants were highly dependent on God concerning their future health.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests the need for designing cancer-education programmes and spreading mass awareness by engaging both modern and indigenous cancer care providers in addressing the health-seeking behavior and practices of the people of Barak Valley.

When Is a Harm a Harm? Discordance between Patient and Medical Experts' Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Attributes

BACKGROUND

A shared decision-making (SDM) process for lung cancer screening (LCS) includes a discussion between clinicians and patients about benefits and potential harms. Expert-driven taxonomies consider mortality reduction a benefit and consider false-positives, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and direct and indirect costs of LCS as potential harms.

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether patients conceptualize the attributes of LCS differently from expert-driven taxonomies.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study with semistructured interviews and a card-sort activity.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three Veterans receiving primary care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 55 to 73 y of age with 30 or more pack-years of smoking. Sixty-one percent were non-Hispanic African American or Black, 35% were non-Hispanic White, 4% were Hispanic, and 9% were female.

APPROACH

Semistructured interviews with thematic coding.

MAIN MEASURES

The proportion of participants categorizing each attribute as a benefit or harm and emergent themes that informed this categorization.

KEY RESULTS

In addition to categorizing reduced lung cancer deaths as a benefit (22/23), most also categorized the following as benefits: routine annual screening (8/9), significant incidental findings (20/23), follow-up in a nodule clinic (20/23), and invasive procedures (16/23). Four attributes were classified by most participants as a harm: false-positive (13/22), overdiagnosis (13/23), overtreatment (6/9), and radiation exposure (20/22). Themes regarding the evaluation of LCS outcomes were 1) the value of knowledge about body and health, 2) anticipated positive and negative emotions, 3) lack of clarity in terminology, 4) underlying beliefs about cancer, and 5) risk assessment and tolerance for uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipating discordance between patient- and expert-driven taxonomies of the benefits and harms of LCS can inform the development and interpretation of value elicitation and SDM discussions.

Relationships of Family History-related Factors and Causal Beliefs to Cancer Risk Perception and Mammography Screening Adherence Among Medically Underserved Women

This study examines how family history-related factors and causal beliefs affect underserved women's cancer risk perceptions and adherence to mammography. 1,010 patients at a primary care safety net clinic at a large urban hospital completed a survey in 2015. Of the 1,010 patients, 467 women 45 years of age or older were included in this analysis. The majority of participants were African American (68%). We built multivariable linear and logistic regression models to examine the dependent variables of cancer risk perception and mammography screening adherence. According to the results, those with a family history of cancer were significantly more likely to be adherent to mammography. Perceived importance of family health history also significantly predicted their mammography screening adherence. However, cancer risk perceptions did not predict underserved women's mammography adherence. Significant interaction effects on the associations 1) between family cancer history, cancer risk perceptions, and mammography screening adherence and 2) between race, behavioral causal beliefs, and risk perceptions were found. Findings suggest that implementing different strategies across racial groups and by cancer history may be necessary to promote regular mammography screening.

'Why us?' Causal attributions of childhood cancer survivors, survivors' parents and community comparisons - a mixed methods analysis

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the cause of their cancer is important for many cancer patients. Childhood cancer survivors'/survivors' parents' beliefs about cancer etiology are understudied. We aimed to assess survivors'/parents' beliefs about what causes childhood cancer, compared with beliefs in the community. We also investigated the influence of clinical and socio-demographic characteristics on the participants' beliefs about cancer etiology.

METHODS

This two-stage study investigated the participants' beliefs, by using questionnaires assessing causal attributions related to childhood cancer (stage 1) and then undertaking telephone interviews (stage 2; survivors/survivors' parents only) to get an in-depth understanding of survivors'/survivors' parents beliefs. We computed multivariable regressions to identify factors associated with the most commonly endorsed attributions: bad luck/chance, environmental factors and genetics. We analyzed interviews using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Six hundred one individuals (64.6% survivors and 35.4% survivors' parents) and 510 community comparisons (53.1% community adults, 46.9% community parents) completed the question on causal attributions. We conducted 87 in-depth interviews. Survivors/survivors' parents (73.9%) were more likely to believe that chance/bad luck caused childhood cancer than community participants (42.4%). Community participants more frequently endorsed that genetics (75.3%) and environmental factors (65.3%) played a major role in childhood cancer etiology (versus survivors' and survivors' parents: genetics 20.6%, environmental factors: 19.3%). Community participants, participants with a first language other than English, and reporting a lower quality of life were less likely to attribute bad luck as a cause of childhood cancer. Community participants, all participants with a higher income and higher education were more likely to attribute childhood cancer etiology to environmental factors.

CONCLUSION

Causal attributions differed between survivors/survivors' parents and community participants. Most of the parents and survivors seem to understand that there is nothing they have done to cause the cancer. Understanding survivors' and survivors' parents' causal attributions may be crucial to address misconceptions, offer access to services and to adapt current and future health behaviors.