Dataset Information

Exploring Explanatory Models of Risk in Breast Cancer Risk Counseling Discussions: NSABP/NRG Oncology Decision-Making Project 1.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Explanatory models represent patient understanding of etiology, pathophysiology, illness, symptoms, and treatments, but little attention has been paid to how they are used by patients "at risk" for future disease. OBJECTIVE:The aims of this study were to elucidate what constitutes an explanatory model of risk and to describe explanatory models of risk related to developing breast cancer. METHODS:Thirty qualitative interviews with women identified as at an increased risk for breast cancer were conducted. Interviews were coded to identify domains of explanatory models of risk using a priori codes derived from the explanatory model of illness framework. Within each domain, a grounded thematic analysis described participants' explanatory models related to breast cancer risk. RESULTS:The domains of treatment and etiology remained similar in a risk context compared with illness, whereas course of illness, symptoms, and pathophysiology differed. We identified a new, integrative concept relative to other domains within explanatory models of risk: social comparisons, which was dominant in risk perhaps due to the lack of physical experiences associated with being "at risk." CONCLUSIONS:Developing inclusive understandings of risk and its treatment is key to developing a framework for the care of high-risk patients that is both evidence based and sensitive to patient preferences. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The concept of "social comparisons" can assist healthcare providers in understanding women's decision making under conditions of risk. Ensuring that healthcare providers understand patient perceptions of risk is important because it relates to patient decision making, particularly due to an increasing focus on risk assessment in cancer.

SUBMITTER: Gunn CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5745305 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan/Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring Explanatory Models of Risk in Breast Cancer Risk Counseling Discussions: NSABP/NRG Oncology Decision-Making Project 1.

Gunn Christine M CM Bokhour Barbara B Parker Victoria A VA Parker Patricia A PA Blakeslee Sarah S Bandos Hanna H Holmberg Christine C

Cancer nursing 20190101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Explanatory models represent patient understanding of etiology, pathophysiology, illness, symptoms, and treatments, but little attention has been paid to how they are used by patients "at risk" for future disease.<h4>Objective</h4>The aims of this study were to elucidate what constitutes an explanatory model of risk and to describe explanatory models of risk related to developing breast cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>Thirty qualitative interviews with women identified as at an increas ...[more]

PMID: 28661894

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLiterature 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.MethodsWomen 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.ResultsParticipants 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.

Project description:ObjectivesLittle 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.DesignConsultations 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).SettingTwo 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.ParticipantsThirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included.MethodsParticipants 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.ResultsRisk 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.ConclusionsOur 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 numberNCT01399359.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been limited evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in rectal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. HRQOL outcomes in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project R-04 trial are examined in this article.MethodsBetween 2004 and 2010, R-04 patients were invited to enroll in the HRQOL substudy, with questionnaires administered before randomization, after completion of chemoradiotherapy, and 1-year after surgery. HRQOL measures included: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for colorectal cancer (FACT-C); Short Form-36v.2 Vitality scale; a treatment-specific symptom scale; and the FACT neurotoxicity scale. A 5-year postsurgery assessment was added to the protocol in 2012. Mixed-effects models examined neoadjuvant therapy treatment effects in the 1-year sample and models that explored associations of host factors and treatment impact on 5-year HRQOL.ResultsA total of 1373 patients completed baseline HRQOL and at least one additional assessment. The average age was 58 years (range, 23-85 years), male (68%), and 59% Stage II. There were no statistically significant differences in HRQOL outcomes by treatment arm, but HRQOL worsened from baseline to postneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with statistically significant effect sizes changes ranging from 0.6 (Vitality) to 0.9 (FACT-C Trial Outcome Index). Neurotoxicity was greater in the oxaliplatin-treated groups. Obese/overweight patients had statistically significantly worse FACT-C Trial Outcome Index scores than did underweight/normal weight groups. At 5 years, younger patients and those with normal baseline weight had statistically significantly better physical function scores and older patients had better mental health outcomes.ConclusionsHRQOL did not differ across the four R-04 treatment arms; however, host factors explained significant variation in posttreatment HRQOL.Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT00058474 (https://ClinicalTrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00058474).Lay summaryThis article reports on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes of patients treated with four different chemotherapy regimens combined with radiation in rectal cancer patients before definitive surgical treatment. There were no significant differences in HRQOL by treatment regimen, but all patients experienced decreased vitality (energy) and physical functioning. By 1 year after treatment, most patients had returned to pretreatment vitality and physical functioning, with the exception of increased neurotoxicity. In a subsample of patients assessed at 5 years after surgery, physical function was better in those who at pretreatment were younger, normal weight, and had better performance status. Mental function was better in those who at pretreatment were older and had better performance status.

Dataset Information

Exploring Explanatory Models of Risk in Breast Cancer Risk Counseling Discussions: NSABP/NRG Oncology Decision-Making Project 1.

Publications

Exploring Explanatory Models of Risk in Breast Cancer Risk Counseling Discussions: NSABP/NRG Oncology Decision-Making Project 1.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets