P3-08-04: “How Important Is This for Me?” – The Role of Necessity Beliefs as Determinants of Breast Cancer Prevention Intentions among High-Risk Women.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Women at elevated risk for breast cancer (BC) face complex risk management decisions. Understanding the determinants of pre-counselling risk management intentions would be useful to clinicians in helping high-risk women make their decisions. Across several medical conditions, the Necessity-Concerns Framework (NCF) has emphasized the role of patient’ beliefs about interventions offered to them as central to decision-making. In the NCF, beliefs are conceptualized as perceived personal need for an intervention (necessity) and as concerns about its perceived negative effects. To date, the NCF has not been applied to investigate decision-making in the high-risk setting. Our objective was to use the NCF to describe the risk management beliefs of high-risk women prior to initial consultation. The relative importance of BC fear, perceived susceptibility to BC and necessity-concerns beliefs in predicting prevention intentions was also examined. Methods A survey was sent to patients prior to their first risk consultation. BC fear was assessed with Champion BC Fear Scale and perceived susceptibility was measured by asking women to rate their likelihood of developing BC (0 =definitely will not get it to 100=definitely will get it). For each of screening, lifestyle modifications, pharmacoprevention (PP) and prophylactic surgery (PS), women rated (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) their need for the option (e.g., my health in the future will depend on this option, this option will protect me from becoming worse), and its negative consequences (e.g. I worry about the long-term effects of this option, this option will disrupt my life). Intentions were assessed by asking how strongly (1=definitely not to 5=Definitely Yes) they intended to adopt each option. The planned sample size is 100 women and recruitment is on-going. We report data from 44 women who have completed the questionnaire. Results: The majority intended to adopt screening (92%) and lifestyle (91%) compared to PP (23%) or PS (18%). Screening and lifestyle were associated with stronger intentions, higher perceived need, and lower concerns than PP and PS (all t-tests, p <0.0001). Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that perceived need predicted intentions for each option (all ps < 0.005, except for screening, p < .1) whereas concern beliefs were only correlated with PP intentions (β=-.398, p < .005). Fear of BC was related to PP intentions (β=.401, p < .005) and to intentions to remain smoke-free (β=-.341, p < .05). Perceived susceptibility did not contribute to intentions. Conclusions Our preliminary findings are promising and suggest that the NCF is useful for understanding decision-making in the high-risk setting. The findings emphasize the importance of necessity beliefs in BC risk management decisions. For the group as whole, across each risk management option, the strongest predictor of intentions was a women's perception of her personal need for the option. Concerns about negative effects and BC fear played only a minor role and perceived susceptibility did not predict intentions. These observations stress the importance of making screening or prevention recommendations hand in hand with the individual beliefs and concerns. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-08-04.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».