MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4404912713 · doi:10.2196/47856

Relationship Between Perceived COVID-19 Risk and Change in Perceived Breast Cancer Risk: Prospective Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4404912713 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryan Baxter-King, Arash Naeim, T.Q. Huang, Karen Sepucha, Annette L. Stanton, Aaron Rudkin, Rita Ryu, Leah Sabacan, Lynn Vavreck, Laura J. Esserman, Allison Stover Fiscalini, Neil S. Wenger

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Cancer · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Mots-clésBreast cancerRisk perceptionAnxietyMedicineObservational studyProspective cohort studyCancerInternal medicinePerceptionPsychologyPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Whether COVID-19 is associated with a change in risk perception about other health conditions is unknown. Because COVID-19 occurred during a breast cancer study, we evaluated the effect of COVID-19 risk perception on women's breast cancer risk perception. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the relationship between perceived risk of COVID-19 and change in perceived breast cancer risk. We hypothesized that women who perceived greater COVID-19 risk would evidence increased perceived breast cancer risk and this risk would relate to increased anxiety and missed cancer screening. METHODS: Women aged 40-74 years with no breast cancer history were enrolled in a US breast cancer prevention trial in outpatient settings. They had provided breast cancer risk perception and general anxiety before COVID-19. We performed a prospective observational study of the relationship between the perceived risk of COVID-19 and the change in perceived breast cancer risk compared to before the pandemic. Each woman was surveyed up to 4 times about COVID-19 and breast cancer risk perception, general anxiety, and missed medical care early in COVID-19 (May to December 2020). RESULTS: Among 13,002 women who completed a survey, compared to before COVID-19, anxiety was higher during COVID-19 (mean T score 53.5 vs 49.7 before COVID-19; difference 3.8, 95% CI 3.6-4.0; P<.001) and directly related to perceived COVID-19 risk. In survey wave 1, anxiety increased by 2.3 T score points for women with very low perceived COVID-19 risk and 5.2 points for those with moderately or very high perceived COVID-19 risk. Despite no overall difference in breast cancer risk perception (mean 32.5% vs 32.5% before COVID-19; difference 0.24, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.52; P=.93), there was a direct relationship between change in perceived breast cancer risk with COVID-19 risk perception, ranging in survey wave 4 from a 2.4% decrease in breast cancer risk perception for those with very low COVID-19 risk perception to a 3.4% increase for women with moderately to very high COVID-19 risk perception. This was not explained by the change in anxiety or missed cancer screening. After adjustment for age, race, education, and survey wave, compared to women with very low perceived COVID-19 risk, perceived breast cancer risk increased by 1.54% (95% CI 0.75%-2.33%; P<.001), 4.28% (95% CI 3.30%-5.25%; P<.001), and 3.67% (95% CI 1.94%-5.40%; P<.001) for women with moderately low, neither high nor low, and moderately or very high perceived COVID-19 risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Low perceived COVID-19 risk was associated with reduced perceived breast cancer risk, and higher levels of perceived COVID-19 risk were associated with increased perceived breast cancer risk. This natural experiment suggests that a threat such as COVID-19 may have implications beyond the pandemic. Preventive health behaviors related to perceived risk may need attention as COVID-19 becomes endemic.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,049
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,970

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,251
Tête enseignante GPT0,487
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR CancerMême sujetCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsTravaux en français237 207