nach oben

03.05.2024 | Original Paper

Associations between subjective social status and predictors of interest in genetic testing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

verfasst von: Jonathan N. Odumegwu, Daniel Chavez-Yenter, Melody S. Goodman, Kimberly A. Kaphingst

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Genetic testing for gene mutations which elevate risk for breast cancer is particularly important for women diagnosed at a young age. Differences remain in access and utilization to testing across social groups, and research on the predictors of interest in genetic testing for women diagnosed at a young age is limited.

Methods

We examined the relationships between subjective social status (SSS) and variables previously identified as possible predictors of genetic testing, including genome sequencing knowledge, genetic worry, cancer worry, health consciousness, decision-making preferences, genetic self-efficacy, genetic-related beliefs, and subjective numeracy, among a cohort of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

Results

In this sample (n = 1,076), those who had higher SSS had significantly higher knowledge about the limitations of genome sequencing (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.01−1.21) and significantly higher informational norms (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.19−3.14) than those with lower SSS. Similarly, education (OR = 2.75; 95% CI = 1.79−4.22), health status (OR = 2.18; 95% CI = 1.44−3.31) were significant predictors among higher SSS women compared to lower SSS women in our multivariate analysis. Lower SSS women with low self-reported income (OR = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.08−0.20) had lower odds of genetic testing interest. Our results are consistent with some prior research utilizing proxy indicators for socioeconomic status, but our research adds the importance of using a multidimensional indicator such as SSS to examine cancer and genetic testing predictor outcomes.

Conclusion

To develop interventions to improve genetic knowledge, researchers should consider the social status and contexts of women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age (or before 40 years old) to ensure equity in the distribution of genetic testing benefits.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, Kramer JL, Newman LA, Minihan A et al (2022) Breast cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72(6):524–541PubMedCrossRef

National Cancer Institute. Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer [Internet]. National Cancer Institute. 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 10]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

Andrikopoulou A, Chatzinikolaou S, Kyriopoulos I, Bletsa G, Kaparelou M, Liontos M et al (2021) The mutational landscape of early-onset breast cancer: a next-generation sequencing analysis. Front Oncol 11:797505PubMedCrossRef

Waks AG, Winer EP (2019) Breast cancer treatment: a review. JAMA 321(3):288PubMedCrossRef

Elmore JG (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293(10):1245PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Dreyer MS, Nattinger AB, McGinley EL, Pezzin LE (2018) Socioeconomic status and breast cancer treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 167(1):1–8PubMedCrossRef

Chapman-Davis E, Zhou ZN, Fields JC, Frey MK, Jordan B, Sapra KJ et al (2021) Racial and ethnic disparities in genetic testing at a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer center. J Gen Intern Med 36(1):35–42PubMedCrossRef

Kurian AW, Ward KC, Abrahamse P, Bondarenko I, Hamilton AS, Deapen D et al (2021) Time trends in receipt of germline genetic testing and results for women diagnosed with breast cancer or ovarian cancer, 2012–2019. J Clin Oncol 39(15):1631–1640PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Frey MK, Finch A, Kulkarni A, Akbari MR, Chapman-Davis E (2022) Genetic testing for all: overcoming disparities in ovarian cancer genetic testing. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 42:471–482CrossRef

10.

Nikolaidis C, Duquette D, Mendelsohn-Victor KE, Anderson B, Copeland G, Milliron KJ et al (2019) Disparities in genetic services utilization in a random sample of young breast cancer survivors. Genet Med 21(6):1363–1370PubMedCrossRef

11.

Gehlert S, Hudson D, Sacks T (2021) A critical theoretical approach to cancer disparities: breast cancer and the social determinants of health. Front Public Health 21(9):674736CrossRef

12.

Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M et al (2005) Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. JAMA 294(22):2879PubMedCrossRef

13.

Ko NY, Hong S, Winn RA, Calip GS (2020) Association of insurance status and racial disparities with the detection of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA Oncol 6(3):385PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Poulson MR, Beaulieu-Jones BR, Kenzik KM, Dechert TA, Ko NY, Sachs TE et al (2021) Residential racial segregation and disparities in breast cancer presentation, treatment, and survival. Ann Surg 273(1):3–9PubMedCrossRef

15.

Kaphingst KA, Ivanovich J, Biesecker BB, Dresser R, Seo J, Dressler LG et al (2016) Preferences for return of incidental findings from genome sequencing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age: Young breast cancer patients’ preferences for return of results. Clin Genet 89(3):378–384PubMedCrossRef

16.

Kaphingst KA, Ivanovich J, Lyons S, Biesecker B, Dresser R, Elrick A et al (2018) Preferences for learning different types of genome sequencing results among young breast cancer patients: role of psychological and clinical factors. Transl Behav Med 8(1):71–79PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

17.

Ashida S, Goodman MS, Stafford J, Lachance C, Kaphingst KA (2012) Perceived familiarity with and importance of family health history among a medically underserved population. J Community Genet 3(4):285–295PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

18.

Krakow M, Ratcliff CL, Hesse BW, Greenberg-Worisek AJ (2017) Assessing genetic literacy awareness and knowledge gaps in the us population: results from the health information national trends survey. Public Health Genomics 20(6):343–348PubMedCrossRef

19.

Haga SB, Barry WT, Mills R, Ginsburg GS, Svetkey L, Sullivan J et al (2013) Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomark 17(4):327–335CrossRef

20.

Taheri M, Tavakol M, Akbari ME, Almasi-Hashiani A, Abbasi M (2019) Relationship of socio economic status, income, and education with the survival rate of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health 48(8):1428–1438PubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Singh-Manoux A, Marmot MG, Adler NE (2005) Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosom Med 67(6):855–861PubMedCrossRef

22.

Singh-Manoux A, Adler NE, Marmot MG (2003) Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med 56(6):1321–1333PubMedCrossRef

23.

Bartley M, Sacker A, Firth D, Fitzpatrick R (1999) Understanding social variation in cardiovascular risk factors in women and men: the advantage of theoretically based measures. Soc Sci Med 49(6):831–845PubMedCrossRef

24.

Wolff LS, Acevedo-Garcia D, Subramanian SV, Weber D, Kawachi I (2010) Subjective social status, a new measure in health disparities research: do race/ethnicity and choice of referent group matter? J Health Psychol 15(4):560–574PubMedCrossRef

25.

Zhang W, McCubbin H, McCubbin L, Chen Q, Foley S, Strom I et al (2010) Education and self-rated health: an individual and neighborhood level analysis of Asian Americans, Hawaiians, and Caucasians in Hawaii. Soc Sci Med 70(4):561–569PubMedCrossRef

26.

Song L (2011) Social capital and psychological distress. J Health Soc Behav 52(4):478–492PubMedCrossRef

27.

Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR (2000) Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy. White women Health Psychol 19(6):586–592PubMedCrossRef

28.

De Castro AB, Gee GC, Takeuchi DT (2010) Examining alternative measures of social disadvantage among Asian Americans: the relevance of economic opportunity, subjective social status, and financial strain for health. J Immigr Minor Health 12(5):659–671PubMedCrossRef

29.

Zhang W, Ta VM (2009) Social connections, immigration-related factors, and self-rated physical and mental health among Asian Americans. Soc Sci Med 68(12):2104–2112PubMedCrossRef

30.

Greco G, Bickell NA, Lin S, Yagnik R, LeRoith D, Gallagher EJ (2023) Subjective social status, race, and metabolic syndrome in women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 199(3):479–487PubMedCrossRef

31.

Carrera PM, Kantarjian HM, Blinder VS (2018) The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin 68(2):153–165PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

32.

Yousuf Zafar S (2016) Financial toxicity of cancer care: it’s time to intervene. J Natl Cancer Inst 108(5):djv370PubMedCrossRef

33.

Lentz R, Benson AB, Kircher S (2019) Financial toxicity in cancer care: prevalence, causes, consequences, and reduction strategies. J Surg Oncol 120(1):85–92PubMedCrossRef

34.

Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ et al (2017) Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA 317(23):2402PubMedCrossRef

35.

Elrick A, Ashida S, Ivanovich J, Lyons S, Biesecker BB, Goodman MS et al (2017) Psychosocial and clinical factors associated with family communication of cancer genetic test results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age. J Genet Couns 26(1):173–181PubMedCrossRef

36.

Seo J, Ivanovich J, Goodman MS, Biesecker BB, Kaphingst KA (2017) Information topics of greatest interest for return of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age. J Genet Couns 26(3):511–521PubMedCrossRef

37.

Thompson LM, Jarvis S, Sparacino P, Kuo D, Genz S (2013) Perceptions of health equity and subjective social status among baccalaureate nursing students engaged in service-learning activities in Hawai’i. Hawaii J Med Public Health J Asia Pac Med Public Health 72(10):339–345

38.

Kaphingst K, Facio F, Cheng MR, Brooks S, Eidem H, Linn A et al (2012) Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge. Clin Genet 82(5):408–415PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

39.

Biesecker LG, Mullikin JC, Facio FM, Turner C, Cherukuri PF, Blakesley RW et al (2009) The ClinSeq Project: piloting large-scale genome sequencing for research in genomic medicine. Genome Res 19(9):1665–1674PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Shiloh S, Wade CH, Roberts JS, Alford SH, Biesecker BB (2013) Associations between risk perceptions and worry about common diseases: a between- and within-subjects examination. Psychol Health 28(4):434–449PubMedCrossRef

41.

Gotay CC, Pagano IS (2007) Assessment of Survivor Concerns (ASC): a newly proposed brief questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5(1):15PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

42.

Parrott R (2004) Emphasizing “Communication” in health communication. J Commun 54(4):751–787CrossRef

43.

Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med

44.

Goodman MS, Griffey RT, Carpenter CR, Blanchard M, Kaphingst KA (2015) Do subjective measures improve the ability to identify limited health literacy in a clinical setting? J Am Board Fam Med 28(5):584–594PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

45.

Fan JH, Lyons SA, Goodman MS, Blanchard MS, Kaphingst KA (2016) Relationship between health literacy and unintentional and intentional medication nonadherence in medically underserved patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 42(2):199–208PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

46.

Griffey RT, Kennedy SK, McGownan L, Goodman M, Kaphingst KA (2014) Is low health literacy associated with increased emergency department utilization and recidivism? Acad Emerg Med 21(10):1109–1115PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

47.

Seo J, Goodman MS, Politi M, Blanchard M, Kaphingst KA (2016) Effect of health literacy on decision-making preferences among medically underserved patients. Med Decis Making 36(4):550–556PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

48.

Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A et al (2008) Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med 23(5):561–566PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

49.

Carpenter CR, Kaphingst KA, Goodman MS, Lin MJ, Melson AT, Griffey RT (2014) Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of brief health literacy and numeracy screening instruments in an urban emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 21(2):137–146PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

50.

Dutta-Bergman M (2003) Trusted online sources of health information: differences in demographics, health beliefs, and health-information orientation. J Med Internet Res 5(3):e21PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

51.

Lillie SE, Brewer NT, O’Neill SC, Morrill EF, Dees EC, Carey LA et al (2007) Retention and use of breast cancer recurrence risk information from genomic tests: the role of health literacy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(2):249–255PubMedCrossRef

52.

Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P (1997) The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res Arch 29(3):21–44

53.

Grunfeld EA, Maher EJ, Browne S, Ward P, Young T, Vivat B et al (2006) Advanced breast cancer patients’ perceptions of decision making for palliative chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 24(7):1090–1098PubMedCrossRef

54.

Hay J, Kaphingst K, Baser R, Li Y, Hensley-Alford S, McBride C (2012) Skin cancer concerns and genetic risk information-seeking in primary care. Public Health Genomics 15(2):57–72PubMedCrossRef

55.

Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM (2007) Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making 27(5):672–680PubMedCrossRef

56.

Zhang Y, Rohrer J, Borders T, Farrell T (2007) Patient satisfaction, self-rated health status, and health confidence: an assessment of the utility of single-item questions. Am J Med Qual 22(1):42–49PubMedCrossRef

57.

Strathman A, Gleicher F, Boninger DS, Edwards CS (1994) The consideration of future consequences: weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 66(4):742–752CrossRef

58.

Hidalgo B, Goodman M (2013) Multivariate or multivariable regression? Am J Public Health 103(1):39–40PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

59.

Hosmer DW, Lemesbow S (1980) Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Commun Stat Theory Methods 9(10):1043–1069CrossRef

60.

Ashida S, Goodman M, Pandya C, Koehly LM, Lachance C, Stafford J et al (2011) Age differences in genetic knowledge, health literacy and causal beliefs for health conditions. Public Health Genomics 14(4–5):307–316PubMedCrossRef

61.

Kaphingst KA, Blanchard M, Milam L, Pokharel M, Elrick A, Goodman MS (2016) Relationships between health literacy and genomics-related knowledge, self-efficacy, perceived importance, and communication in a medically underserved population. J Health Commun 21(sup1):58–68PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

62.

O’Neill SC, Evans C, Hamilton RJ, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, Friedman S et al (2018) Information and support needs of young women regarding breast cancer risk and genetic testing: adapting effective interventions for a novel population. Fam Cancer 17(3):351–360PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

63.

Rabin C, Simpson N, Morrow K, Pinto B (2013) Intervention format and delivery preferences among young adult cancer survivors. Int J Behav Med 20(2):304–310PubMedCrossRef

64.

Singh GK, Williams SD, Siahpush M, Mulhollen A (2011) Socioeconomic, rural-urban, and racial inequalities in US cancer mortality: Part I—All Cancers and lung cancer and Part II—Colorectal, prostate, breast, and cervical cancers. J Cancer Epidemiol 2011:1–27CrossRef

65.

Natale-Pereira A, Enard KR, Nevarez L, Jones LA (2011) The role of patient navigators in eliminating health disparities. Cancer 117(S15):3541–3550CrossRef

66.

Polite BN, Gluck AR, Brawley OW (2019) Ensuring equity and justice in the care and outcomes of patients with cancer. JAMA 321(17):1663PubMedCrossRef

67.

Lin GA, Trosman JR, Douglas MP, Weldon CB, Scheuner MT, Kurian A et al (2022) Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings. J Genet Couns 31(1):130–139PubMedCrossRef

68.

Conley CC, Otto AK, McDonnell GA, Tercyak KP (2021) Multiple approaches to enhancing cancer communication in the next decade: translating research into practice and policy. Transl Behav Med 11(11):2018–2032PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

69.

Durst AL, Mills R (2020) Education in genetic counseling: the impacts of genetic literacy and adult learning. In: LeRoy BS, Veach PM, Callanan NP (eds) Genetic counseling practice [Internet]. 1st edn. Wiley [cited 2023 Aug 11]. pp 271–315. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119529873.ch13

70.

Nazareth S, Hayward L, Simmons E, Snir M, Hatchell KE, Rojahn S et al (2021) Hereditary cancer risk using a genetic chatbot before routine care visits. Obstet Gynecol 138(6):860–870PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

71.

Nazareth S, Nussbaum RL, Siglen E, Wicklund CA (2021) Chatbots & artificial intelligence to scale genetic information delivery. J Genet Couns 30(1):7–10PubMedCrossRef

72.

Park SY, Kim Y, Kim S, Katapodi MC (2023) Informational needs of individuals from families harboring BRCA pathogenic variants: a systematic review and content analysis. Genet Med 25(4):100001PubMedCrossRef

73.

Furniss CS, Yurgelun MB, Ukaegbu C, Constantinou PE, Lafferty CC, Talcove-Berko ER et al (2021) Novel models of genetic education and testing for pancreatic cancer interception: preliminary results from the generate study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa) 14(11):1021–1032CrossRef

74.

Shemesh T, Barnoy S (2020) Assessment of the intention to use mobile health applications using a technology acceptance model in an Israeli adult population. Telemed E-Health 26(9):1141–1149CrossRef

75.

Joseph G, Lee R, Pasick RJ, Guerra C, Schillinger D, Rubin S (2019) Effective communication in the era of precision medicine: a pilot intervention with low health literacy patients to improve genetic counseling communication. Eur J Med Genet 62(5):357–367PubMedCrossRef

76.

Kaphingst KA (2023) Future forecasting for research and practice in genetic literacy. Public Health Genomics 26:159–164PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Associations between subjective social status and predictors of interest in genetic testing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age
verfasst von: Jonathan N. Odumegwu
Daniel Chavez-Yenter
Melody S. Goodman
Kimberly A. Kaphingst
Publikationsdatum: 03.05.2024
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Cancer Causes & Control
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-024-01878-0

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Associations between subjective social status and predictors of interest in genetic testing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

Update Onkologie

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

Update Onkologie