Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10
-
ItemMotivators of Inappropriate Ovarian Cancer Screening: A Survey of Women and Their Clinicians(OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2021-02)BACKGROUND: This study examined why women and doctors screen for ovarian cancer (OC) contrary to guidelines. METHODS: Surveys, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, were sent to women in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer and family physicians and gynecologists who organized their screening. RESULTS: Of 1264 Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer women, 832 (65.8%) responded. In the past 2 years, 126 (15.1%) had screened. Most of these (n = 101, 80.2%) would continue even if their doctor told them it is ineffective. For women, key OC screening motivators operated in the domains of social role and goals (staying healthy for family, 93.9%), emotion and reinforcement (peace of mind, 93.1%), and beliefs about capabilities (tests are easy to have, 91.9%). Of 531 clinicians 252 (47.5%) responded; a minority (family physicians 45.8%, gynecologists 16.7%) thought OC screening was useful. For gynecologists, the main motivators of OC screening operated in the domains of environmental context (lack of other screening options, 27.6%), and emotion (patient peace of mind, 17.2%; difficulty discontinuing screening, 13.8%). For family physicians,, the strongest motivators were in the domains of social influence (women ask for these tests, 20.7%), goals (a chance these tests will detect cancer early, 16.4%), emotion (patient peace of mind, 13.8%), and environmental context (no other OC screening options, 11.2%). CONCLUSION: Reasons for OC screening are mostly patient driven. Clinician knowledge and practice are discordant. Motivators of OC screening encompass several domains, which could be targeted in interventions to reduce inappropriate OC screening.
-
Item
-
ItemAustralian clinicians and chemoprevention for women at high familial risk for breast cancer(BMC, 2009-05-04)OBJECTIVES: Effective chemoprevention strategies exist for women at high risk for breast cancer, yet uptake is low. Physician recommendation is an important determinant of uptake, but little is known about clinicians' attitudes to chemoprevention. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with clinicians at five Family Cancer Centers in three Australian states. Discussions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty three clinicians, including genetic counselors, clinical geneticists, medical oncologists, breast surgeons and gynaecologic oncologists, participated in six focus groups in 2007. The identified barriers to the discussion of the use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for chemoprevention pertained to issues of evidence (evidence for efficacy not strong enough, side-effects outweigh benefits, oophorectomy superior for mutation carriers), practice (drugs not approved for chemoprevention by regulatory authorities and not government subsidized, chemoprevention not endorsed in national guidelines and not many women ask about it), and perception (clinicians not knowledgeable about chemoprevention and women thought to be opposed to hormonal treatments). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated limited enthusiasm for discussing breast cancer chemoprevention as a management option for women at high familial risk. Several options for increasing the likelihood of clinicians discussing chemoprevention were identified; maintaining up to date national guidelines on management of these women and education of clinicians about the drugs themselves, the legality of "off-label" prescribing, and the actual costs of chemopreventive medications.
-
ItemHow do women at increased, but unexplained, familial risk of breast cancer perceive and manage their risk? A qualitative interview study(BMC, 2011-09-06)BACKGROUND: The perception of breast cancer risk held by women who have not had breast cancer, and who are at increased, but unexplained, familial risk of breast cancer is poorly described. This study aims to describe risk perception and how it is related to screening behaviour for these women. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a population-based sample (the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study - ABCFS). The ABCFS includes women diagnosed with breast cancer and their relatives. For this study, women without breast cancer with at least one first- or second-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 were eligible unless a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation had been identified in their family. Data collection consisted of an audio recorded, semi-structured interview on the topic of breast cancer risk and screening decision-making. Data was analysed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 24 interviews were conducted, and saturation of the main themes was achieved. Women were classified into one of five groups: don't worry about cancer risk, but do screening; concerned about cancer risk, so do something; concerned about cancer risk, so why don't I do anything?; cancer inevitable; cancer unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: The language and framework women use to describe their risk of breast cancer must be the starting point in attempts to enhance women's understanding of risk and their prevention behaviour.
-
ItemMeanings of abortion in context: accounts of abortion in the lives of women diagnosed with breast cancer(BMC, 2017-04-05)BACKGROUND: A breast cancer diagnosis and an abortion can each be pivotal moments in a woman's life. Research on abortion and breast cancer deals predominantly with women diagnosed during pregnancy who might be advised to have an abortion. The other-discredited but persistent-association is that abortions cause breast cancer. The aim here was to understand some of the ways in which women themselves might experience the convergence of abortion and breast cancer. METHODS: Among 50 women recruited from the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study and interviewed in depth about what it meant to have a breast cancer diagnosis before the age of 41, five spontaneously told of having or contemplating an abortion. The transcripts of these five women were analysed to identify what abortion meant in the context of breast cancer, studying each woman's account as an individual "case" and interpreting it within narrative theory. RESULTS: It was evident that each woman understood abortion as playing a different role in her life. One reported an abortion that she did not link to her cancer, the second was relieved not to have to abort a mid-treatment pregnancy, the third represented abortion as saving her life by making her cancer identifiable, the fourth grieved an abortion that had enabled her to begin chemotherapy, and the fifth believed that her cancer was caused by an earlier abortion. CONCLUSIONS: The women's accounts illustrate the different meanings of abortion in women's lives, with concomitant need for diverse support, advice, and information.
-
ItemiPrevent®: a tailored, web-based, decision support tool for breast cancer risk assessment and management(SPRINGER, 2016-02)We aimed to develop a user-centered, web-based, decision support tool for breast cancer risk assessment and personalized risk management. Using a novel model choice algorithm, iPrevent(®) selects one of two validated breast cancer risk estimation models (IBIS or BOADICEA), based on risk factor data entered by the user. Resulting risk estimates are presented in simple language and graphic formats for easy comprehension. iPrevent(®) then presents risk-adapted, evidence-based, guideline-endorsed management options. Development was an iterative process with regular feedback from multidisciplinary experts and consumers. To verify iPrevent(®), risk factor data for 127 cases derived from the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study were entered into iPrevent(®), IBIS (v7.02), and BOADICEA (v3.0). Consistency of the model chosen by iPrevent(®) (i.e., IBIS or BOADICEA) with the programmed iPrevent(®) model choice algorithm was assessed. Estimated breast cancer risks from iPrevent(®) were compared with those attained directly from the chosen risk assessment model (IBIS or BOADICEA). Risk management interventions displayed by iPrevent(®) were assessed for appropriateness. Risk estimation model choice was 100 % consistent with the programmed iPrevent(®) logic. Discrepant 10-year and residual lifetime risk estimates of >1 % were found for 1 and 4 cases, respectively, none was clinically significant (maximal variation 1.4 %). Risk management interventions suggested by iPrevent(®) were 100 % appropriate. iPrevent(®) successfully integrates the IBIS and BOADICEA risk assessment models into a decision support tool that provides evidence-based, risk-adapted risk management advice. This may help to facilitate precision breast cancer prevention discussions between women and their healthcare providers.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableScreening Practices of Unaffected People at Familial Risk of Colorectal Cancer(AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH, 2012-02)Our objective was to determine screening practices of unaffected people in the general population at moderately increased and potentially high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) because of their family history of the disease. A total of 1,627 participants in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry study were classified into two CRC risk categories, according to the strength of their family history of the disease. We calculated the proportion of participants that adhered to national CRC screening guidelines by age group and for each familial risk category. We carried out a multinomial logistic regression analysis to evaluate the associations between screening and sociodemographic factors. Of the 1,236 participants at moderately increased risk of CRC, 70 (6%) reported having undergone guideline-defined "appropriate" screening, 251 (20%) reported some, but less than appropriate screening, and 915 (74%) reported never having had any CRC screening test. Of the 392 participants at potentially high risk of CRC, three (1%) reported appropriate screening, 140 (36%) reported some, but less than appropriate screening, and 249 (64%) reported never having had any CRC screening test. On average, those of middle age, higher education, and who had resided in Australia longer were more likely to have had screening for CRC. The uptake of recommended screening by unaffected people at the highest familial risk of developing CRC is extremely low. Guidelines for CRC screening are not being implemented in the population. More research is needed to identify the reasons so as to enable development of strategies to improve participation in screening.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableScreening practices of Australian men and women categorized as "at or slightly above average risk" of colorectal cancer(SPRINGER, 2012-11)PURPOSE: Australia has one of the highest incidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world. In 2006, the federal government introduced a screening program consisting of a one-off fecal occult blood test offered to people turning 50, 55, or 65 years. We conducted a population-based study to estimate CRC screening practices existing outside the current program. METHODS: A total of 1887 unaffected subjects categorized "at or slightly above average risk" of CRC were selected from the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry. We calculated the proportions of participants that reported appropriate, under- and over-screening according to national guidelines. We performed a logistic regression analysis to evaluate associations between over-screening and a set of socio-demographic factors. RESULTS: Of 532 participants at average risk of CRC, eligible for screening, 4 (0.75 %) reported appropriate screening, 479 (90 %) reported never having been screened, 18 (3 %) reported some but less than appropriate screening, and 31 (6 %) reported over-screening. Of 412 participants aged 50 years or over, slightly above average risk of CRC, 1 participant (0.25 %) reported appropriate screening, 316 (77 %) reported no screening, and 11 (3 %) reported some but less than appropriate screening. Among participants under age 50 years, 2 % of those at average risk and 10 % of those slightly above average risk reported over-screening. Middle-aged people, those with a family history of CRC and those with a university degree, were more likely to be over-screened. CONCLUSION: Overall, the level of CRC screening participation was low and the vast majority of screening tests undertaken were inappropriate in terms of timing, modality, or frequency.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePerceived Versus Predicted Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Self-Reported Colonoscopies by Members of Mismatch Repair Gene Mutation-Carrying Families Who Have Declined Genetic Testing(WILEY, 2014-02)People carrying germline mutations in mismatch repair genes are at high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), yet about half of people from mutation-carrying families decline genetic counselling and/or testing to identify mutation status. We studied the association of quantitative measures of risk perception, risk prediction and self-reported screening colonoscopy in this elusive yet high-risk group. The sample of 26 participants (mean age 43.1 years, 14 women) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry were relatives of mutation carriers; had not been diagnosed with any cancer at the time of recruitment and had declined an invitation to attend genetic counselling and/or testing. A structured elicitation protocol captured perceived CRC risk over the next 10 years. Self-reported colonoscopy screening was elicited during a 45-minute semi-structured interview. Predicted 10-year CRC risk based on age, gender, known mutation status and family history was calculated using "MMRpro." Mean perceived 10-year risk of CRC was 31 % [95 % CI 21, 40], compared with mean predicted risk of 4 % [2, 7] (p < 0.001); this was independent of age and sex (p = 0.9). Among those reporting any medical advice and any screening colonoscopy (n = 18), those with higher risk perception had less frequent colonoscopy (Pearson's r = 0.49 [0.02, 0.79]). People who decline genetic testing for CRC susceptibility mutations perceive themselves to be at substantially higher risk than they really are. Those with high perceived risk do not undertake screening colonoscopy more often than those who perceive themselves to be at average risk.
-
ItemUptake of offer to receive genetic information about BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in an Australian population-based study(American Association for Cancer Research, 2004)Research on the utilization of genetic testing services for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 has focused on women with a strong family history of breast and ovarian cancer. We conducted a population-based case-control-family study of Australian women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer before age 40 years, unselected for family history, and tested for germ line mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Case subjects found to carry a deleterious mutation and their relatives who had given a research blood sample were informed by mail that the study had identified “genetic information” and were offered the opportunity to learn more. Those interested were referred to a government-funded family cancer clinic. Of 94 subjects who received the letter, 3 (3%) did not respond and 38 (40%) declined to learn their result (16 declined the referral, 10 accepted but did not attend a clinic, and 12 attended a clinic but declined testing), and 12 (13%) remain “on hold”. The remaining 41 (44%) chose to learn their result (3 of whom already knew their mutation status). There was no evidence that the decision to learn of mutation status depended on age, gender, family history, or having been diagnosed with breast cancer. Of 19 families with more than one participant, in 11 (58%) there was discordance between relatives in receiving genetic results.