Evaluating the Effect of Health Education Intervention on the Health Beliefs and Behaviors of First-Degree Female Relatives of Breast Cancer Patients

Abstract

Background Breast cancer risk increases by 80% in the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations in the same family. In particular, a woman whose sister or mother has breast cancer has a 2- to 5-fold higher risk of developing breast cancer compared with other women. For this reason, recommendations should have been made regarding breast cancer prevention and/or early detection for women with first-degree family history of breast cancer. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of health education, which was provided to first-degree female relatives of breast cancer patients, on their health beliefs and behaviors. Study Design and Methods The study sample included 50 women with a first-degree relative being treated for breast cancer in the chemotherapy and radiotherapy unit of a university hospital. A one-group pretest-posttest design was used. The pretest consisted of the health belief model scale and a questionnaire regarding the women’s sociodemographic information and breast cancer screening behaviors. After the pretest, the patients received health education regarding breast cancer risk factors and screening methods. The posttest was conducted 3 weeks after the education using the same assessment tools. Results After education, there were statistically significant increases in rates of practicing breast self-examination, having clinical breast examinations, and undergoing breast ultrasound/mammography compared with pretest results. Conclusions Health workers should possess knowledge and experience about breast cancer which will enable them to effectively undertake an educational role, especially for high-risk groups such as women with first-degree family history of breast cancer.

Effects of interventions on the screening behavior in female first‐degree relatives of breast cancer patients: A systematic review

“…The 13 included studies were published between 1991 and 2022. The majority were conducted in the United States ( n = 7) (Audrain et al., 1999; Bastani et al., 1999; Bloom et al., 2006; Houts et al., 1991; Lipscomb et al., 2020; Oleske et al., 2007; Richardson et al., 1996), and the rest were conducted in China ( n = 3) (Liu et al., 2017; Tao et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2019), Iran ( n = 2) (Hajian et al., 2011; Nasiriani et al., 2017), Turkey ( n = 1) (Olgun & Dizer, 2021). In total, 3287 women were included.…”

“…Mammogram rates were used as an outcome indicator in 12 studies. Of these studies, eight (66.7%) of these were classified as promising interventions (i.e., reported a significant increase in mammogram rates) (Bastani et al., 1999; Houts et al., 1991; Lipscomb et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2017; Nasiriani et al., 2017; Olgun & Dizer, 2021; Richardson et al., 1996; Zhao et al., 2019). The remaining four (33.3%) interventions were classed as non‐promising interventions (Bloom et al., 2006; Hajian et al., 2011; Oleske et al., 2007; Tao et al., 2017).…”

“…The remaining four (33.3%) interventions were classed as non‐promising interventions (Bloom et al., 2006; Hajian et al., 2011; Oleske et al., 2007; Tao et al., 2017). Of the ten studies (Audrain et al., 1999; Bloom et al., 2006; Hajian et al., 2011; Houts et al., 1991; Liu et al., 2017; Oleske et al., 2007; Olgun & Dizer, 2021; Richardson et al., 1996; Tao et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2019) using BSE as an outcome indicator, only one had no significant effect after the intervention which was classed as a non‐promising intervention (Audrain et al., 1999). Similarly, just one (Bloom et al., 2006) of the seven studies (Bloom et al., 2006; Houts et al., 1991; Liu et al., 2017; Oleske et al., 2007; Olgun & Dizer, 2021; Tao et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2019) used CBE as an outcome indicator and was deemed to be a non‐promising intervention.…”

“…The exclusion of studies with no control group ( n = 3) (Liu et al., 2017; Olgun & Dizer, 2021; Tao et al., 2017) revealed some alterations in the PR analysis. But the highest ranked BCTs were nearly identical, suggesting that the inclusion of studies with no control group did not substantially alter our results (Figure 3).…”

“…The reason for targeting screening behavior interventions at FDRs is strong, but it is unclear from the data which intervention approaches are most effective and how to best allocate resources. Because published studies do not always specify which aspects of their interventions were successful (Lipscomb et al., 2020; Olgun & Dizer, 2021). To aid future design and implementation of screening behavior interventions for FDRs, and to ensure the most efficient use of resources, it is important to identify the individual aspects of interventions that positively contribute to targeted changes in behavior.…”