Application of the protection motivation theory to genetic testing for breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND Many women, even women at low risk, are interested in genetic testing for breast cancer risk. However, the test has little to offer for women at low to moderate risk. We applied the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to investigate predictors of women's motivation to obtain such a test. METHODS Women at low to moderate risk (n = 330) were recruited through a physician network. They received an informational letter by mail and completed a telephone survey and a written baseline questionnaire. RESULTS Structural equation analyses with motivation to test as the outcome variable showed that the full model was not supported by the data. However, modifications to the model resulted in good model fit and explained 51% of the variance. Women with increased breast cancer worries, which were influenced by perceived risk, and women who saw more disadvantages of not getting tested showed more motivation to pursue testing. Women who saw more advantages of not getting tested showed less motivation. CONCLUSIONS Applying the PMT was helpful in determining factors that play a role in women's intentions to obtain genetic testing. Counseling should aim at decreasing perceived risk and breast cancer worries and include a discussion of the consequences of not getting tested.

[1]  M. Andrykowski,et al.  Hereditary cancer risk notification and testing: how interested is the general population? , 1997, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  H. Valdimarsdottir,et al.  Looking forward and back: Distress among women at familial risk for breast cancer , 2000, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[3]  D. Bowen,et al.  Effects of Counseling and Ethnic Identity on Perceived Risk and Cancer Worry in African American Women , 1998, Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings.

[4]  Kenneth Offit,et al.  Decision-Making About Genetic Testing Among Women at Familial Risk for Breast Cancer , 1997, Psychosomatic medicine.

[5]  S. Cummings,et al.  Sequence analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2: correlation of mutations with family history and ovarian cancer risk. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  R W Rogers,et al.  Fear appeals and attitude change: effects of a threat's noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and the efficacy of coping responses. , 1976, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  J. Thompson,et al.  BRCA1 mutations and breast cancer in the general population: analyses in women before age 35 years and in women before age 45 years with first-degree family history. , 1998, JAMA.

[8]  Wylie Burke,et al.  Predicting breast cancer screening intentions and behavior with emotion and cognition. , 2003 .

[9]  F. Collins.  BRCA1--lots of mutations, lots of dilemmas. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  G. Geller,et al.  Participation in breast cancer susceptibility testing protocols: influence of recruitment source, altruism, and family involvement on women's decisions. , 1999, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[11]  J K Worden,et al.  Likelihood of undergoing genetic testing for cancer risk: a population-based study. , 2000, Preventive medicine.

[12]  T. Rebbeck,et al.  Assessment and counseling for women with a family history of breast cancer. A guide for clinicians. , 1995, JAMA.

[13]  E. Guadagnoli,et al.  Patient participation in decision-making. , 1998, Social science & medicine.

[14]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[15]  R. Croyle,et al.  Prophylactic surgery decisions and surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing. , 2000, Preventive medicine.

[16]  B. Trock,et al.  BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. A prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes. , 1996, JAMA.

[17]  R. Rogers.  Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of prote , 1983 .

[18]  N D Weinstein,et al.  Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility. , 1993, Health education research.

[19]  M. Andrykowski,et al.  Interest in learning of personal genetic risk for cancer: a general population survey. , 1996, Preventive medicine.

[20]  J. Holland,et al.  Psychological distress and surveillance behaviors of women with a family history of breast cancer. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[21]  D. Bowen,et al.  Attitudes and interest in genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in diverse groups of women in western Washington. , 1999, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[22]  C. Isaacs,et al.  BRCA1/2 testing: complex themes in result interpretation. , 2001, Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[24]  R. Croyle,et al.  Interest in genetic testing for colon cancer susceptibility: cognitive and emotional correlates. , 1993, Preventive medicine.

[25]  Julie O. Culver,et al.  Genetic counseling for women with an intermediate family history of breast cancer. , 2000, American journal of medical genetics.

[26]  Emily White,et al.  Genetic Testing for Cancer Risk: A Population Survey on Attitudesand Intention , 1999, Public Health Genomics.

[27]  D. Bowen,et al.  Importance of psychological variables in understanding risk perceptions and breast cancer screening of African American women. , 1997, Women's health.

[28]  D. Bowen,et al.  Predictors of participation in genetic research in a primary care physician network. , 2000, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[29]  C. Lerman,et al.  Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients. , 1995, American journal of medical genetics.

[30]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change , 1983 .

[31]  R. Hoyle.  Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications , 1997 .

[32]  M. Horowitz,et al.  Impact of Event Scale: A Measure of Subjective Stress , 1979, Psychosomatic medicine.

[33]  B. Byrne.  A Primer of Lisrel: Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models , 1989 .

[34]  Steven Prentice-Dunn,et al.  Protection motivation theory. , 1997 .

[35]  R. Cattell,et al.  A Comprehensive Trial Of The Scree And Kg Criteria For Determining The Number Of Factors. , 1977, Multivariate behavioral research.

[36]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1. , 1975, The Journal of psychology.

[37]  R. Cattell.  The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[38]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling With the Simplis Command Language , 1993 .

[39]  Stress and genetic testing for disease risk. , 1997 .

[40]  Howard Leventhal,et al.  Behavioral theories and the problem of compliance , 1987 .

[41]  M. Schwartz,et al.  The influence of psychological distress on use of genetic testing for cancer risk , 1997 .

[42]  J. Balint,et al.  Regaining the initiative. Forging a new model of the patient-physician relationship. , 1996, JAMA.

[43]  Charis Eng,et al.  Genetic testing: The problems and the promise , 1997, Nature Biotechnology.

[44]  J. Benkendorf,et al.  Racial differences in testing motivation and psychological distress following pretest education for BRCA1 gene testing. , 1999, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[45]  M. Daly,et al.  Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. , 1994, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[46]  B. Trock,et al.  Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. , 1991, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.