Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) taken for a minimum of five years reduces the recurrence and mortality risks among women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer. However, adherence to AET is suboptimal. To guide the development of theory-based interventions to enhance AET adherence, we conducted a study to explore beliefs regarding early adherence to AET. This qualitative study was guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). We conducted focus groups and individual interviews among women prescribed AET in the last two years (n = 43). The topic guide explored attitudinal (perceived advantages and disadvantages), normative (perception of approval or disapproval), and control beliefs (barriers and facilitating factors) towards adhering to AET. Thematic analysis was conducted. Most women had a positive attitude towards AET regardless of their medication-taking behavior. The principal perceived advantage was protection against a recurrence while the principal inconvenience was side effects. Almost everyone approved of the woman taking her medication. The women mentioned facilitating factors to encourage medication-taking behaviors and cope with side effects. For adherent women, having trouble establishing a routine was their main barrier to taking medication. For non-adherent women, it was side effects affecting their quality of life. These findings could inform the development of community pharmacy-based adherence interventions.

Background Data on the modalities of disclosing genomic secondary findings (SFs) remain scarce. We explore cancer patients’ and the general public’s perspectives about disclosing genomic SFs and the modalities of such disclosure. Methods Sixty-one cancer patients (n = 29) and members of the public (n = 32) participated in eight focus groups in Montreal and Quebec City, Canada. They were asked to provide their perspectives of five fictitious vignettes related to medically actionable and non-actionable SFs. Two researchers used a codification framework to conduct a thematic content analysis of the group discussion transcripts. Results Cancer patients and members of the public were open to receive genomic SFs, considering their potential clinical and personal utility. They believed that the right to know or not and share or not such findings should remain the patient’s decision. They thought that the disclosure of SFs should be made mainly in person by the prescribing clinician. Maintaining confidentiality when so requested and preventing genetic discrimination were considered essential. Conclusion Participants in this study welcomed the prospect of disclosing genomic SFs, as long as the right to choose to know or not to know is preserved. They called for the development of policies and practice guidelines that aim to protect genetic information confidentiality as well as the autonomy, physical and psychosocial wellbeing of patients and families.