Understanding Decision Making about Breast Cancer Prevention in Action: The Intersection of Perceived Risk,Perceived Control,and Social Context: NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2019
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.
SmithRAManassaram-BaptisteDBrooksDet al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2015: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):30–54.
2.
SiuAL.Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279–96.
3.
VogelVGCostantinoJPWickerhamDet al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP study of tamoxifen and raloxifene STAR P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006;295(23):2727–41.
4.
WatersEACroninKAGraubardBIHanPKFreedmanAN. Prevalence of tamoxifen use for breast cancer chemoprevention among U.S. women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19(2):443–6.
5.
PachurTGalesicM.Strategy selection in risky choice: the impact of numeracy, affect, and cross-cultural differences. J Behav Decis Making. 2013;26(3):260–71.
6.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroR.Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(5):462–8.
7.
WegwarthOSchwartzLMWoloshinSGaissmaierWGigerenzerG.Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):340–9.
8.
HolmbergCBandosHFagerlinAet al. NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project-1 results: decision making in breast cancer risk reduction. Cancer Prev Res. 2017;10(11):625–34.
9.
MartinezKAFagerlinAWittemanHOHolmbergCHawleyST.What matters to women when making decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention?Patient. 2016;9(2):149–59.
10.
SmithSGSestakIForsterAet al. Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):575–90.
11.
WatersEPachurTColditzG.Side effect perceptions and their impact on treatment decisions in women. Med Decis Making. 2016;37(3):193–203.
12.
BlakesleeSBMcCaskill-StevensWParkerPAet al. Deciding on breast cancer risk reduction: the role of counseling in individual decision-making—a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(12):2346–54.
13.
GunnCMBokhourBParkerVAet al. Exploring explanatory models of risk in breast cancer risk counseling discussions: NSABP/NRG Oncology Decision-Making Project 1. Cancer Nurs. 2019;42(1):3–11.
14.
KleinmanAEisenbergLGoodB.Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Intern Med. 1978;88:251–8.
15.
Blumenthal-BarbyJSHeatherK.Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Making. 2014;35(4):539–57.
16.
Cyrus-DavidM.The future of women of minority race/ethnicity in breast cancer chemoprevention therapy. Ethnicity Dis. 2006;16:216–22.
17.
GuestGBunceAJohnsonL.How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.
18.
AndoHCousinsRYoungC.Achieving saturation in thematic analysis: development and refinement of a codebook. Comp Psychol. 2014;3(1):Article 4.
19.
HolmbergCWatersEAWhitehouseKDalyMMcCaskill-StevensW.My lived experiences are more important than your probabilities: the role of individualized risk estimates for decision making about participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Med Decis Making. 2015;35(8):1010–22.
20.
VERBI Software. (2017). MAXQDA 2018 [computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software. Available from https://www.maxqda.com.
21.
CharmazK.Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006.
22.
NealeJ.Iterative categorization (IC): a systematic technique for analysing qualitative data. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2016;111(6):1096–106.
23.
KenenRH.The at-risk health status and technology: a diagnostic invitation and the ‘gift’ of knowing. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42(11):1545–53.
24.
FairfieldKMGersteinBSLevinCAStringfellowVWiermanHRMcNaughton-CollinsM.Decisions about medication use and cancer screening across age groups in the United States. Patient Educ Counsel. 2015;98(3):338–43.
25.
HolmbergC.Decision making in the context of breast cancer chemoprevention: patient perceptions and the meaning of risk. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2015;35:e59–64.
26.
CollinsIMSteelEMannGBet al. Assessing and managing breast cancer risk: clinicians’ current practice and future needs. Breast. 2014;23(5):644–50.
27.
AgoritsasTHeenAFBrandtLet al. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ. 2015;350:g7624.
28.
GrootGWaldronTCarrTet al. Development of a program theory for shared decision-making: a realist review protocol. Syst Rev. 2017;6:114.
29.
DavisSStewartSBloomJ.Increasing the accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk: results from a randomized trial with Cancer Information Service callers. Prev Med. 2004;39(1):64–73.
30.
RauscherGHFerransCEKaiserKCampbellRTCalhounEEWarneckeRB.Misconceptions about breast lumps and delayed medical presentation in urban breast cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19(3):640–7.
31.
BlackWCNeaseRFTostesonANA. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(10):720–31.
32.
QuillinJFriesEMcClishDdeParedesEBodurthaJ.Gail model risk assessment and risk perceptions. J Behav Med. 2004;27(2):205–14.
33.
KaplanCPKimSEWongSTSawayaGFWalshJMEPérez-StableEJ.Willingness to use tamoxifen to prevent breast cancer among diverse women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):357–66.
34.
WaterhouseDCalzoneKMeleCBrennerD.Adherence to oral tamoxifen: a comparison of patient self-report, pill counts, and microelectronic monitoring. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:1189–97.
35.
PaquetLSimmondsLYangCVermaS.An exploratory study of patients’ views about being at high-risk for breast cancer and risk management beliefs and intentions, before and after risk counselling: preliminary evidence of the influence of beliefs on post-counselling prevention intentions. Patient Educ Counsel. 2017;100(3):575–82.
36.
HoergerMSchererLDFagerlinA.Affective forecasting and medication decision making in breast-cancer prevention. Health Psychol. 2016;35(6):594–603.
37.
KratzkeCAmatyaAVilchisH.Breast cancer prevention knowledge, beliefs, and information sources between non-Hispanic and Hispanic college women for risk reduction focus. J Community Health. 2015;40(1):124–30.
38.
ReesGFryACullASuttonS.Illness perceptions and distress in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Psychol Health. 2004;19(6):749–65.
39.
SilvermanEWoloshinSSchwartzLMByramSJWelchHGFischhoffB.Women’s views on breast cancer risk and screening mammography: a qualitative interview study. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(3):231–40.
40.
ErikssonTNilstunTEdwardsA.The ethics of risk communication in lifestyle interventions: consequences of patient centredness. Health Risk Soc. 2007;9(1):19–36.
41.
GorinSSWangCRaichPBowenDJHayJ.Decision making in cancer primary prevention and chemoprevention. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32(3):179–87.
42.
CortezSMilbrandtMKaphingstKAJamesAColditzG.The readability of online breast cancer risk assessment tools. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154(1):191–9.
