Advertisement

Does family communication matter? Exploring knowledge of breast cancer genetics in cancer families

  • Deborah O. HimesEmail author
  • Sarah H. Davis
  • Jane H. Lassetter
  • Neil E. Peterson
  • Margaret F. Clayton
  • Wendy C. Birmingham
  • Anita Y. Kinney
Original Article

Abstract

Knowledge of breast cancer genetics is critical for those at increased hereditary risk who must make decisions about breast cancer screening options. This descriptive study explored theory-based relationships among cognitive and emotional variables related to knowledge of breast cancer genetics in cancer families. Participants included first-degree relatives of women with breast cancer who had received genetic counseling and testing. Study participants themselves did not have breast cancer and had not received genetic counseling or testing. Data were collected by telephone interviews and surveys. Variables analyzed included numeracy, health literacy, cancer-related distress, age, education, and the reported amount of information shared by the participants’ family members about genetic counseling. The multiple regression model explained 13.9% of variance in knowledge of breast cancer genetics (p = 0.03). Best fit of the multiple regression model included all variables except education. Reported amount of information shared was the only independently significant factor associated with knowledge (β = 0.28, p = 0.01). Participants who reported higher levels of information shared by a family member about information learned during a genetic counseling session also demonstrated increased knowledge about breast cancer genetics.

Keywords

Knowledge Breast cancer Cancer genetics Family communication Genetic counseling Precision medicine Numeracy Health literacy 

Notes

Funding information

This study was funded by the Elaine Dyer Research Endowment, provided through the Brigham Young University College of Nursing and by a Graduate Research Fellowship, provided through the Office of Graduate Studies at Brigham Young University.

Previous research with first-degree relatives of current participants was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (1R01CA129142 to AYK and U01 CA152958, K05 CA096940, and U01 CA183081 to JSM) and the Huntsman Cancer Foundation. The project was also supported by the Shared Resources (P30 CA042014) at Huntsman Cancer Institute (Biostatistics and Research Design, Genetic Counseling, Research Informatics, and the Utah Population Database [UPDB]); the Utah Cancer Registry, which is funded by Contract No. HHSN261201000026C from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program with additional support from the Utah State Department of Health and the University of Utah; the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant 8UL1TR000105 (formerly UL1RR025764).

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Ashida S, Hadley DW, Goergen AF, Skapinsky KF, Devlin HC, Koehly LM (2011) The importance of older family members in providing social resources and promoting cancer screening in families with a hereditary cancer syndrome. The Gerontologist 51:833–842.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butrick M, Kelly S, Peshkin BN, Luta G, Nusbaum R, Hooker GW, Graves K, Feeley L, Isaacs C, Valdimarsdottir HB, Jandorf L, DeMarco T, Wood M, McKinnon W, Garber J, McCormick SR, Schwartz MD (2015) Disparities in uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a randomized trial of telephone counseling. Genet Med 17:467–475.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2014.125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015) Understanding literacy and numeracy. https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/learn/understandingliteracy.html. Accessed May 18, 2018
  4. Erblich J, Brown K, Kim Y, Valdimarsdottir HB, Livingston BE, and Bovbjerg DH (2005) Development and validation of a breast cancer genetic counseling knowledge questionnaire. Patient Education and Counseling 56(2):182–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.007
  5. van Dooren S, Rijnsburger AJ, Seynaeve C, Duivenvoorden HJ, Essink-Bot ML, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, de Koning HJ, Tibben A (2004) Psychological distress in women at increased risk for breast cancer: the role of risk perception. Eur J Cancer 40:2056–2063.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2004.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. van Dooren S et al (2005) The impact of having relatives affected with breast cancer on psychological distress in women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 89:75–80.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-004-2623-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garcia-Retamero R, Andrade A, Sharit J, Ruiz JG (2015) Is patients’ numeracy related to physical and mental health? Med Decis Mak 35:501–511.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15578126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibbons A, Groarke A (2016) Can risk and illness perceptions predict breast cancer worry in healthy women? J Health Psychol 21:2052–2062.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105315570984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haas JS, Kaplan CP, Des Jarlais G, Gildengoin V, Perez-Stable EJ, Kerlikowske K (2005) Perceived risk of breast cancer among women at average and increased risk. J Women's Health 14:845–851.  https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2005.14.845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haga SB, Barry WT, Mills R, Ginsburg GS, Svetkey L, Sullivan J, Willard HF (2013) Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 17:327–335.  https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2012.0350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Himes DO, Clayton MF, Donaldson GW, Ellington L, Buys SS, Kinney AY (2016) Breast cancer risk perceptions among relatives of women with uninformative negative BRCA1/2 test results: the moderating effect of the amount of shared information. J Genet Couns 25:258–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9866-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Committee on Health Literacy (2004) Health literacy : a prescription to end confusion. National Academies Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  13. Julian-Reynier C, Sobol H, Sevilla C, Nogues C, Bourret P, French Cancer Genetic N (2000) Uptake of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer genetic testing in a French national sample of BRCA1 families. French Cancer Genet Netw Psychooncol 9:504–510Google Scholar
  14. Kelly KM, Ellington L, Schoenberg N, Agarwal P, Jackson T, Dickinson S, Abraham J, Paskett ED, Leventhal H, Andrykowski M (2014) Linking genetic counseling content to short-term outcomes in individuals at elevated breast cancer risk. J Genet Couns 23:838–848.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9705-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, Lipkus I, Hadley DW (2011) Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 14:279–289.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000294191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leventhal H, Brissette I, Leventhal EA (2003) The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In: Cameron LD, Leventhal H (eds) The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour. Routledge, New York, pp 42–65Google Scholar
  17. Marteau TM, Weinman J (2006) Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 62:1360–1368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Metcalfe KA, Quan ML, Eisen A, Cil T, Sun P, Narod SA (2013) The impact of having a sister diagnosed with breast cancer on cancer-related distress and breast cancer risk perception. Cancer 119:1722–1728.  https://doi.org/10.1002/Cncr.27924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Human Genome Research Institute (2016) Frequently asked questions about genetic and genomic science. https://www.genome.gov/19016904/faq-about-genetic-and-genomic-science/ Accessed May 18, 2018
  20. Patenaude AF, Tung N, Ryan PD, Ellisen LW, Hewitt L, Schneider KA, Tercyak KP, Aldridge J, Garber JE (2013) Young adult daughters of BRCA1/2 positive mothers: what do they know about hereditary cancer and how much do they worry? Psycho-Oncology 22:2024–2031.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Riley BD, Culver JO, Skrzynia C, Senter LA, Peters JA, Costalas JW, Callif-Daley F, Grumet SC, Hunt KS, Nagy RS, McKinnon WC, Petrucelli NM, Bennett RL, Trepanier AM (2012) Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 21:151–161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-011-9462-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schapira MM, Neuner J, Fletcher KE, Gilligan MA, Hayes E, Laud P (2011) The relationship of health numeracy to cancer screening. J Cancer Educ 26:103–110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0133-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sermijn E et al (2004) The impact of proband mediated information dissemination in families with a BRCA1/2 gene mutation. J Med Genet 41:23e–223e.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2003.011353
  24. Taber JM, Chang CQ, Lam TK, Gillanders EM, Hamilton JG, Schully SD (2015) Prevalence and correlates of receiving and sharing high-penetrance cancer genetic test results: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Public Health Genomics 18:67–77.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000368745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tilburt JC, James KM, Sinicrope PS, Eton DT, Costello BA, Carey J, Lane MA, Ehlers SL, Erwin PJ, Nowakowski KE, Murad MH (2011) Factors influencing cancer risk perception in high risk populations: a systematic review. Hered Cancer Clin Pr 9:2.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1897-4287-9-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. VandenBoom E, Trepanier AM, Carmany EP (2017) Assessment of current genetic counselor practices in post-visit written communications to patients. J Genet Couns 27:681–688.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0163-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weller JA, Dieckmann NF, Tusler M, Mertz CK, Burns WJ, Peters E (2012) Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: a Rasch analysis approach. J Behav Decis Mak 26:198–212.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1751 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of NursingBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.College of Nursing, University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology - School of Public HealthRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations