Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Most women overestimate their breast cancer risk

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
J - 14 Jun 2005 00:36 GMT
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=8777037

Most women overestimate their breast cancer risk
Mon Jun 13, 2005 04:18 PM ET

By Alison McCook

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Nearly 9 out of 10 women overestimate how
likely they are to develop breast cancer in their lifetimes, according to
new study findings.

In the study, a group of 175 women estimated that the chance of developing
breast cancer was, on average, 46 percent -- much higher than the actual
average risk of 13 percent.

Previous research has shown that women who speak to a counselor about
their risk of breast cancer tend to become less motivated to schedule
regular mammograms -- perhaps because, during counseling, they learn the
actual risk of breast cancer is much lower than they expected.

Clinicians are thus faced with a "dilemma," the authors write in the
journal Patient Education and Counseling: should they be honest with women
about the odds of breast cancer, and risk that this information makes them
lackadaisical about screening?

A woman's risk of breast cancer "is not as high as you think it is, but
that doesn't mean the risk is zero," study author Dr. Angela Fagerlin of
the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor told Reuters Health. "You
definitely need to have your screening every year," she added.

During the study, Fagerlin and her team asked 175 out of 356 women to
estimate the average risk of breast cancer, then told all the women that
the actual risk was 13 percent.

Only 7 percent of women asked to estimate their risk came close to the
actual number.

Among the women not asked to estimate their risk, on the other hand, 37
percent said they thought 13 percent was close to "what they expected."

In an interview, Fagerlin noted that people likely don't "carry a number
in their head of their risk of breast cancer." Women asked to pinpoint
their risk likely are influenced by the fact that people often talk about
breast cancer, making it seem more common than it is, she said.

In contrast, if they are told outright that it's 13 percent, that sounds
okay. "Everything makes sense after you've heard about it," Fagerlin
noted.

Fagerlin cautioned that the risk of 13 percent is an "average," and each
woman might have a higher or lower risk depending on family history and
other factors. A woman's individual risk "is something only (she and her)
doctor can determine," Fagerlin said.

She added that she and her team have found similar findings in men about
their risk of prostate cancer.

SOURCE: Patient Education and Counseling, June 2005.
Tim Jackson - 14 Jun 2005 08:37 GMT
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=8777037
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> about the odds of breast cancer, and risk that this information makes them
> lackadaisical about screening?

I don't believe I heard that!  Is the author seriously suggesting that
one option of the "dilemma" is for counsellors to LIE to women about
their risk in order to push screening?  What good would that do anyone
in the long run?  It would just lead to the entire counselling service
being discredited.

What we do urgently need is public education on understanding and
analysis of risk, not just in terms of breast cancer but across the
whole spectrum of life in general.  If effective though, it would knock
an awful hole in the profits of lottery funds.  And it would change NASA
forever.

Tim Jackson
Mary Fisher - 14 Jun 2005 09:09 GMT
>> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=8777037
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> of life in general.  If effective though, it would knock an awful hole in
> the profits of lottery funds.  And it would change NASA forever.

What a brilliant observation.

Saved to ponder.

Mary

> Tim Jackson
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.