IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i3p217-227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Christine M. Gunn

    (Section of General Internal Medicine, Women’s Health Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
    Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Barbara G. Bokhour

    (Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Department of Veterans Affairs, Bedford, MA, USA)

  • Victoria A. Parker

    (Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA)

  • Tracy A. Battaglia

    (Section of General Internal Medicine, Women’s Health Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Patricia A. Parker

    (Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA)

  • Angela Fagerlin

    (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Salt Lake City VA Informatics Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS 2.0) Center for Innovation, Salt Lake City, UT, USA)

  • Worta McCaskill-Stevens

    (NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Community Oncology and Prevention Trials Research Group, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA)

  • Hanna Bandos

    (NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Sarah B. Blakeslee

    (Institute of Public Health, Charité–Universitätsmedizin, Brandenburg, Berlin, Germany)

  • Christine Holmberg

    (NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Institute of Public Health, Charité–Universitätsmedizin, Brandenburg, Berlin, Germany
    Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg, Havel, Germany)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine M. Gunn & Barbara G. Bokhour & Victoria A. Parker & Tracy A. Battaglia & Patricia A. Parker & Angela Fagerlin & Worta McCaskill-Stevens & Hanna Bandos & Sarah B. Blakeslee & Christine Holmbe, 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," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 217-227, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:217-227
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19827258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19827258
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19827258?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenen, Regina H., 1996. "The at-risk health status and technology: A diagnostic invitation and the 'gift' of knowing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(11), pages 1545-1553, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rotolo, Thomas & Lengefeld, Michael, 2020. "Clearing the cobwebs: An analysis of the timing of youth concussion legislation in U.S. states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    2. Caiata-Zufferey, Maria, 2015. "Genetically at-risk status and individual agency. A qualitative study on asymptomatic women living with genetic risk of breast/ovarian cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 141-148.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:217-227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.