The Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) referral to women at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Latinas affected by breast cancer have the second highest prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations after Ashkenazi Jews. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Latinas have lower GCRA uptake. While some studies have identified barriers for GCRA use in this population, few studies have focused on health care providers’ perspectives. The purpose of the study was to examine providers’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators for at-risk Latina women to participate in GCRA and their experiences providing services to this population. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare providers (e.g., genetic counselors, patient navigators) recruited nationally through snowballing. Interviews were transcribed. Two coders independently coded each interview and then met to reconcile the codes using Consensual Qualitative Research guidelines. Providers identified several facilitators for GCRA uptake (e.g., family, treatment/prevention decisions) and barriers (e.g., cost, referrals, awareness, stigma). Genetic counselors described important aspects to consider when working with at-risk Latina including language barriers, obtaining accurate family histories, family communication, and testing relatives who live outside the US. Findings from this study can inform future interventions to enhance uptake and quality of GCRA in at-risk Latina women to reduce disparities.
Disparities in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) uptake persist between Latinas and Non‐Hispanic Whites. This study utilized a mental model approach to interview 20 Latinas (10 affected, 10 unaffected) at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Participants were asked about their knowledge and perceptions of GCRA, HBOC, risk, benefits, motivators, barriers, challenges, and experiences with GCRA. Using the Consensual Qualitative Analysis Framework, two authors independently coded the interviews and applied the final codes upon consensus. Additionally, interviews were coded to identify whether participants spontaneously brought up certain topics without a prompt. Findings identified multiple barriers and facilitators to GCRA uptake in this population, including patient level psychosocial/cultural factors (e.g., limited knowledge, worry about relatives’ risk) and healthcare system factors (e.g., receiving no referrals). There were notable differences in awareness and knowledge between affected and unaffected women (e.g., genetic testing awareness), as well as knowledge gaps that were evident in both groups (e.g., age of diagnosis as a risk factor). To reduce disparities in GCRA uptake, interventions should address identified facilitators and barriers. Differences in knowledge and awareness between affected and unaffected women support the development of targeted interventions that address specific knowledge gaps. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03075540) by Alejandra Hurtado de Mendoza, Ph.D.
Disparities for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) persist between Latina and non-Hispanic Whites. There are few tested culturally targeted interventions. We developed a culturally targeted video to enhance GCRA uptake in at-risk Latinas. Interviews with healthcare providers (n = 20) and at-risk Latinas (n = 20) were conducted as formative research to inform the development of the video. Findings from the formative research, health behavior conceptual models, and evidence-based risk communication strategies informed the messages for the script. Then, we conducted a focus group with at-risk Latinas (n = 7) to obtain feedback for final refinement of the script. The final video was piloted for acceptability and potential dissemination in a sample of Latino community health workers (CHWs) (n = 31). Providers and at-risk Latinas suggested using simple language and visual aids to facilitate comprehension. Participants in the focus group identified areas for further clarification (e.g., cost). The result was an 18-min video that illustrates BRosa's^story. Rosa learns about HBOC risk factors and overcomes barriers to attend genetic counseling. CHWs reported high overall satisfaction with the video (M = 9.61, SD = .88, range 1-10). A culturally targeted video has the potential to reach underserved populations with low literacy and English proficiency.
Objective Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in breast cancer survivors is suboptimal. Using the theory of planned behavior (TPB), this study aimed to identify the strongest predictors from the TPB of AET intentions and past behavior and assessed whether ambivalence and anticipatory emotions increased the predictive capacity of TPB. Methods Two hundred eighty women diagnosed with hormone positive (HR+) breast cancer who filled at least one prescription of AET responded to a survey measuring TPB constructs, attitudinal ambivalence, and anticipatory emotions. The outcomes were intentions to adhere to AET and past medication adherence (previous 2 weeks). Results The TPB explained 66% of intentions to adhere to AET (P < 0.001). Ambivalence did not improve the TPB model's predictive value. When emotions were included with TPB, the model explained 70% of adherence intentions F11,226 = 52.84, P < 0.001 (R2c = .70). This increase of 4% in predictability was statistically significant (ΔR2 = 0.04), F6, 226 = 7.90, P < 0.001. Women who self‐reported nonadherence in the past 2 weeks differed significantly in the TPB variables, ambivalence, and anticipatory emotions from adherent women. Nonadherent participants reported lower‐future intentions to adhere F1, 236 = 5.63, P = 0.018. Conclusions Results suggest key concepts, such as anticipatory positive emotions that should be addressed in future interventions to enhance AET adherence and survivorship.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.