Predictors of perceived susceptibility of breast cancer and changes over time: a mixed modeling approach

Amy McQueen, Paul R Swank, Lori A Bastian, Sally W Vernon, Amy McQueen, Paul R Swank, Lori A Bastian, Sally W Vernon

Abstract

Objective: To examine predictors of perceived susceptibility to breast cancer and assess differences across three dependent measures.

Design: Annual surveys were completed by US women veterans (N = 3,758) participating in a repeat mammography intervention trial. Multivariable non-linear mixed model analyses examined individual- and group-level changes in perceived susceptibility to breast cancer.

Dependent measures: Three single-item measures of perceived susceptibility to breast cancer (percent risk, ordinal risk, and comparative risk likelihood). Predictors included demographic, health status, health behavior, affect, knowledge, and subjective norm variables.

Results: Breast symptoms and greater cancer worry increased perceived susceptibility for all three measures. Other predictors varied by dependent measure. Random change, indicating individual variability, was observed for percent risk only.

Conclusion: Despite small model effect sizes, breast symptoms and cancer worry were consistent predictors and may be good targets for messages designed to influence women's perceived susceptibility to breast cancer. Researchers may benefit from using measures of perceived susceptibility with larger response scales, but additional measurement research is needed. Combining indicators of perceived susceptibility may be undesirable when different predictors are associated with different measures.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Quadratic interaction of breast symptoms and time predicting the level and change in percent risk likelihood. Note. The scale range is reduced from 0-100 to better illustrate the small, but statistically significant interaction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quadratic interaction of cancer worry and time predicting the level and change in percent risk likelihood. Note. The scale range is reduced from 0-100 to better illustrate the small, but statistically significant interaction.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Quadratic interaction between smoking status and time predicting the level and change in comparative risk likelihood.

References

    1. Aiken LS, West SG, Woodward CK, Reno RR, Reynolds KD. Increasing screening mammography in asymptomatic women: Evaluation of a second-generation, theory-based program. Health Psychology. 1994;13:526–538.
    1. Aiken LS, Fenaughty AM, West SG, Johnson JJ, Luckett TL. Perceived determinants of risk for breast cancer and the relations among objective risk, and screening behavior over time. Women’s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy. 1995;1:27–50.
    1. Blalock SJ, DeVellis BM, Afifi RA, Sandler RS. Risk perceptions and participation in colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychology. 1990;9:792–806.
    1. Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods change. Sage; Newbury Park: 1992.
    1. Davis S, Stewart S, Bloom J. Increasing the accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk: Results from a randomized trail with Cancer Information Service callers. Preventive Medicine. 2004;39:64–73.
    1. Fishbein M. The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care. 2000;12:273–278.
    1. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1989;81:1879–1886.
    1. Gerend MA, Aiken LS, West SG, Erchull MJ. Beyond medical risk: Investigating the psychological factors underlying women’s perceptions of susceptibility to breast cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis. Health Psychology. 2004;23:247–258.
    1. Gibbons FX, Eggleston TJ, Benthin AC. Cognitive reactions to smoking relapse: The reciprocal relation between dissonance and self-esteem. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 1997;72:184–195.
    1. Grunfeld EA, Ramirez AJ, Hunter MS, Richards MA. Women’s knowledge and beliefs regarding breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer. 2002;86:1373–1378.
    1. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, Lingle WL, Degnim AC, Ghosh K, et al. Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2005;353:229–237.
    1. Hay JL, Coups EJ, Ford JS. Predictors of perceived risk for colon cancer in a national probability sample in the United States. Journal of Health Communication. 2006;11:71–92.
    1. Helzlsouer KJ, Ford DE, Hayward RSA, Midzenski M. Perceived risk of cancer and practice of cancer prevention behaviors among employees in an oncology center. Preventive Medicine. 1994;23:302–308.
    1. Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly. 1984;11:1–47.
    1. Katapodi MC, Lee KA, Facione NC, Dodd MJ. Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review. Preventive Medicine. 2004;38:388–402.
    1. Klein WM. Maintaining self-serving social comparisons: Attenuating the perceived significance of risk-increasing behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1996;15:120–142.
    1. Lipkus IM, Klein WMP. Effects of communicating social comparison information on risk perceptions for colorectal cancer. Journal of Health Communication. 2006;11:391–407.
    1. Lipkus IM, Klein WMP, Skinner CS, Rimer BK. Breast cancer risk perceptions and breast cancer worry: What predicts what? Journal of Risk Research. 2005;8:439–452.
    1. Lipkus IM, Klein WMP, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prevention. 2001;10:895–898.
    1. Lipkus IM, Skinner CS, Dement J, Pompeii L, Moser B, Samsa GP, et al. Increasing colorectal cancer screening among individuals in the carpentry trade: Test of risk communication interventions. Preventive Medicine. 2005;40:489–501.
    1. Lipkus IM, Iden D, Terrenoire J, Feaganes JR. Relationships among breast cancer concern, risk perceptions, and interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility among African-American women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 1999;8:533–539.
    1. Lipkus IM, Kuchibhatla M, McBride CM, Bosworth HB, Pollack K, Siegler IC, et al. Relationships among breast cancer, perceived absolute risk, comparative risk, and worries. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2000;9:973–975.
    1. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD. SAS systems for mixed models. SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, NC: 1996.
    1. McCaul KD, Branstetter AD, Schroeder DM, Glasgow RE. What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography screening? A meta-analytic review. Health Psychology. 1996;15:423–429.
    1. McQueen A, Vernon SW, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Examining mediators of perceived susceptibility on colorectal cancer screening intention and behavior among male autoworkers; Paper presented at the 27th annual meeting for Society of Behavioral Medicine; San Francisco, CA. 2006; Manuscript under review.
    1. Oncken C, McKee S, Krishnan-Sarin S, O’Malley S, Mazure CM. Knowledge and perceived risk of smoking-related conditions: A survey of cigarette smokers. Preventive Medicine. 2005;40:779–784.
    1. Quilin JM, Fries E, McClish D, deParedes ES, Bodurtha J. Gail model risk assessment and risk perceptions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2004;27:205–214.
    1. Robb KA, Miles A, Wardle J. Demographic and psychosocial factors associated with perceived risk for colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2004;13:366–372.
    1. Rogers RW, Prentice-Dunn S. Protection motivation theory. In: Gochman DS, editor. Handbook of health behavior research. Plenum Press; NY: 1997. pp. 113–132.
    1. Rosenthal R. How are we doing in soft psychology? American Psycholgist. 1990;45:775–777.
    1. Snijders T, Bosker R. Multilevel Analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1999.
    1. Soofi ES, Retzer JJ, Yasai-Ardekani M. A framework for measuring the importance of variables with applications to management research and decision models. Decision Sciences. 2000;31:595–625.
    1. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE., Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical Care. 1988;26:724–735.
    1. Tiro JA, Diamond P, Perz CA, Fernandez ME, Rakowski WA, DiClemente CC, et al. Validation of scales measuring attitudes and norms related to mammography screening in women veterans. Health Psychology. 2005;24:555–566.
    1. Vernon SW, Myers RE, Tilley BC, Li S. Factors associated with perceived risk in automotive employees at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2001;10:35–43.
    1. Vernon SW. Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: A review. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 1999:101–119.
    1. Vernon SW, Vogel VG, Halabi S, Bondy ML. Factors associated with perceived risk of breast cancer among women attending a screening program. Breast Cancer Research. 1993;28:137–144.
    1. Wang J, Costantino JP, Tan-Chiu E, Wickerham DL, Paik S, Wolmark N. Lower-category benign breast disease and the risk of invasive breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2004;96:616–620.
    1. Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology. 1988;7:355–386.
    1. Weinstein ND. Perceptions of personal susceptibility to harm. In: Mays VM, Albee GW, Schneider SF, editors. Primary Prevention of AIDS. Sage; Newbury Park: 1989. pp. 142–167.
    1. Weinstein ND. What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 1999;25:15–20.
    1. Weinstein ND, Atwood K, Puleo E, Fletcher R, Colditz G, Emmons KM. Colon cancer: Risk perceptions and risk communication. Journal of Health Communication. 2004;9:53–65.
    1. Wild TC, Cunningham J. Psychosocial determinants of perceived vulnerability to harm among adult drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2001;62:105–113.
    1. Windschitl PD. Measuring and conceptualizing perceptions of vulnerability/likelihood; Paper presented at the Conceptualizing and Measuring Risk Perceptions Workshop; Washington, D.C.. 2003; .

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir