Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/58246
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFielden, Hannah Gen
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Stephen Len
dc.contributor.authorSaini, Poojaen
dc.contributor.authorBeesley, Helenen
dc.contributor.authorSalmon, Peteren
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-10T04:06:22Z-
dc.date.available2024-04-10T04:06:22Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationPsycho-Oncology, 26(9), p. 1254-1262en
dc.identifier.issn1099-1611en
dc.identifier.issn1057-9249en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/58246-
dc.description.abstract<p><b>Objective</b>Risk-reducing procedures can be offered to people at increased cancer risk, but many procedures can have iatrogenic effects. People therefore need to weigh risks associated with both cancer and the risk‐reduction procedure in their decisions. By reviewing relevant literature on breast cancer (BC) risk reduction, we aimed to understand how women at relatively high risk of BC perceive their risk and how their risk perceptions influence their decisions about risk reduction.</p><p><b>Methods</b>Synthesis of 15 qualitative studies obtained from systematic searches of SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, Psych INFO, and Medline electronic databases (inception‐June 2015).</p><p><b>Results</b>Women did not think about risk probabilistically. Instead, they allocated themselves to broad risk categories, typically influenced by their own or familial experiences of BC. In deciding about risk‐reduction procedures, some women reported weighing the risks and benefits, but papers did not describe how they did so. For many women, however, an overriding wish to reduce intense worry about BC led them to choose aggressive risk‐reducing procedures without such deliberation.</p><p><b>Conclusions</b>Reasoning that categorisation is a fundamental aspect of risk perception, we argue that patients can be encouraged to develop more nuanced and accurate categorisations of their own risk through their interactions with clinicians. Empirically‐based ethical reflection is required to determine whether and when it is appropriate to provide risk‐reduction procedures to alleviate worry.</p>en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltden
dc.relation.ispartofPsycho-Oncologyen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.titleHow do women at increased breast cancer risk perceive and decide between risks of cancer and risk‐reducing treatments? A synthesis of qualitative researchen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pon.4349en
local.contributor.firstnameHannah Gen
local.contributor.firstnameStephen Len
local.contributor.firstnamePoojaen
local.contributor.firstnameHelenen
local.contributor.firstnamePeteren
local.profile.schoolSchool of Psychologyen
local.profile.emailsbrow238@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen
local.format.startpage1254en
local.format.endpage1262en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume26en
local.identifier.issue9en
local.access.fulltextYesen
local.contributor.lastnameFieldenen
local.contributor.lastnameBrownen
local.contributor.lastnameSainien
local.contributor.lastnameBeesleyen
local.contributor.lastnameSalmonen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:sbrow238en
local.profile.orcid0000-0002-6142-0995en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:1959.11/58246en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleHow do women at increased breast cancer risk perceive and decide between risks of cancer and risk‐reducing treatments? A synthesis of qualitative researchen
local.relation.fundingsourcenoteEconomic and Social Research Council (UK), Grant/Award Number: ES/J008184/en
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorFielden, Hannah Gen
local.search.authorBrown, Stephen Len
local.search.authorSaini, Poojaen
local.search.authorBeesley, Helenen
local.search.authorSalmon, Peteren
local.open.fileurlhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/51874fdb-105d-4d8b-a208-f21295499175en
local.uneassociationNoen
local.atsiresearchNoen
local.sensitive.culturalNoen
local.year.published2017en
local.fileurl.openhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/51874fdb-105d-4d8b-a208-f21295499175en
local.fileurl.openpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/51874fdb-105d-4d8b-a208-f21295499175en
local.subject.for20205203 Clinical and health psychologyen
local.subject.seo2020tbden
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
local.profile.affiliationtypeExternal Affiliationen
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Psychology
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/HowdowomenBrown2017JournalArticle.pdfPublished version425.51 kBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
View/Open
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

10
checked on Jan 11, 2025
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons