Accuracy of Perceived Breast Cancer Risk in Black and White Women with an Elevated Risk.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jessica M.L. Young, K. Postula, D. Duquette, Melissa Gutierrez-Kapheim, Vivian Pan, M. Katapodi
{"title":"Accuracy of Perceived Breast Cancer Risk in Black and White Women with an Elevated Risk.","authors":"Jessica M.L. Young, K. Postula, D. Duquette, Melissa Gutierrez-Kapheim, Vivian Pan, M. Katapodi","doi":"10.18865/ed.32.2.81","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction\nPerceived breast cancer risk predicts screening behaviors. However, perceived risk is often inaccurate, notably in Black women, who often underestimate their risk despite having higher disease-specific mortality rates. We examined predictors of perceived breast cancer risk, and its impact on surveillance.\n\n\nMethods\nWe used baseline data from a randomized trial targeting unaffected women recruited by relatives with early-onset breast cancer. Data collection occurred between 2012 and 2013. Accuracy of perceived risk was assessed by comparing perceived risk to objective lifetime breast cancer risks, calculated with the Gail and Claus models. A multivariate mixed model regression examined predictors of accuracy of perceived risk. The impact of perceived risk on breast cancer surveillance was assessed with one-way ANOVAS comparing Black to White women.\n\n\nResults\nAmong participants, 21.4% self-identified as Black and 78.6% as White. Overall, 72.9% (n=247/339), 16.2% (n=55/339), and 10.9% (n=37/339) of participants overestimated, accurately perceived, and underestimated, respectively, their lifetime breast cancer risk. Race did not predict the accuracy of risk perception. Younger participants were more likely to overestimate their risk (β=-.455; CI [-.772, -.138]; P=.005). MRI utilization was predicted by a higher objective risk (F 1,263 [= 30.271]; P<.001) and more accurate risk perception (P=.010; Fisher's exact test).\n\n\nConclusions\nMost women with a family history of early-onset breast cancer inaccurately perceived their risk for developing the disease. Younger women were more likely to overestimate their risk. Findings can guide the development of tailored interventions to improve adherence to breast cancer surveillance recommendations.","PeriodicalId":50495,"journal":{"name":"Ethnicity & Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnicity & Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.32.2.81","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction Perceived breast cancer risk predicts screening behaviors. However, perceived risk is often inaccurate, notably in Black women, who often underestimate their risk despite having higher disease-specific mortality rates. We examined predictors of perceived breast cancer risk, and its impact on surveillance. Methods We used baseline data from a randomized trial targeting unaffected women recruited by relatives with early-onset breast cancer. Data collection occurred between 2012 and 2013. Accuracy of perceived risk was assessed by comparing perceived risk to objective lifetime breast cancer risks, calculated with the Gail and Claus models. A multivariate mixed model regression examined predictors of accuracy of perceived risk. The impact of perceived risk on breast cancer surveillance was assessed with one-way ANOVAS comparing Black to White women. Results Among participants, 21.4% self-identified as Black and 78.6% as White. Overall, 72.9% (n=247/339), 16.2% (n=55/339), and 10.9% (n=37/339) of participants overestimated, accurately perceived, and underestimated, respectively, their lifetime breast cancer risk. Race did not predict the accuracy of risk perception. Younger participants were more likely to overestimate their risk (β=-.455; CI [-.772, -.138]; P=.005). MRI utilization was predicted by a higher objective risk (F 1,263 [= 30.271]; P<.001) and more accurate risk perception (P=.010; Fisher's exact test). Conclusions Most women with a family history of early-onset breast cancer inaccurately perceived their risk for developing the disease. Younger women were more likely to overestimate their risk. Findings can guide the development of tailored interventions to improve adherence to breast cancer surveillance recommendations.
风险升高的黑人和白人女性乳腺癌症风险感知的准确性。
引言癌症风险可预测筛查行为。然而,感知到的风险往往是不准确的,尤其是在黑人女性中,尽管她们的疾病特异性死亡率较高,但她们往往低估了自己的风险。我们研究了感知乳腺癌症风险的预测因素及其对监测的影响。方法我们使用了一项随机试验的基线数据,该试验针对的是早发性癌症亲属招募的未受影响的女性。数据收集发生在2012年至2013年之间。感知风险的准确性是通过将感知风险与癌症终生客观风险进行比较来评估的,用盖尔和克劳斯模型计算。多元混合模型回归检验了感知风险准确性的预测因素。通过单因素方差分析比较黑人和白人女性,评估感知风险对乳腺癌症监测的影响。结果在参与者中,21.4%的人认为自己是黑人,78.6%的人认为是白人。总体而言,72.9%(n=247/339)、16.2%(n=55/339)和10.9%(n=37/339)的参与者分别高估、准确感知和低估了他们一生癌症的风险。种族并没有预测风险感知的准确性。年轻的参与者更有可能过高估计他们的风险(β=-4.55;CI[-.772,-.138];P=.005)。MRI利用率通过更高的客观风险(F 1263[=30.271];P<.001)和更准确的风险感知(P=.010;Fisher精确检验)来预测。结论大多数有早发性癌症家族史的女性对其发展疾病的风险感知不准确。年轻女性更可能高估自己的风险。研究结果可以指导制定量身定制的干预措施,以提高对癌症监测建议的遵守率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethnicity & Disease
Ethnicity & Disease 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ethnicity & Disease is an international journal that exclusively publishes information on the causal and associative relationships in the etiology of common illnesses through the study of ethnic patterns of disease. Topics focus on: ethnic differentials in disease rates;impact of migration on health status; social and ethnic factors related to health care access and health; and metabolic epidemiology. A major priority of the journal is to provide a forum for exchange between the United States and the developing countries of Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信