4.6 Article

Characteristics of Health Information Gatherers, Disseminators, and Blockers Within Families at Risk of Hereditary Cancer: Implications for Family Health Communication Interventions

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 99, 期 12, 页码 2203-2209

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.154096

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 HG200335-02, Z99 CA999999, Z01 HG200335] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [N02CP65504, N02CP11019] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIEHS NIH HHS [27307C0009] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Given the importance of the dissemination of accurate family history to assess disease risk, we characterized the gatherers, disseminators, and blockers of health information within families at high genetic risk of cancer. Methods. A total of 5466 personal network members of 183 female participants of the Breast Imaging Study from 124 families with known mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes (associated with high risk of breast, ovarian, and other types of cancer) were identified by using the Colored Eco-Genetic Relationship Map (CEGRM). Hierarchical nonlinear models were fitted to characterize information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers. Results. Gatherers of information were more often female (P<.001), parents (P<.001), and emotional support providers (P<.001). Disseminators were more likely female first- and second- degree relatives (both P<.001), family members in the older or same generation as the participant (P<.001), those with a cancer history (P<.001), and providers of emotional (P<.001) or tangible support (P<.001). Blockers tended to be spouses or partners (P<.001) and male, first-degree relatives (P<.001). Conclusions. Our results provide insight into which family members may, within a family-based intervention, effectively gather family risk information, disseminate information, and encourage discussions regarding shared family risk. (Am J Public Health. 2009;99:2203-2209. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.154096)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据