Women's preferences for selective estrogen reuptake modulators: an investigation using the time trade-off technique
AffiliationSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney, Sydney, New SouthWales 2006, Australia
Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85724, USA
Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, Australia
Sir Peter MacCallum Dept. of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, 147 Barker Street, Randwick, New South Wales 2031, Australia
School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales 2031, Australia
Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
MetadataShow full item record
CitationRalph et al. SpringerPlus 2014, 3:264 http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/264
Rights© 2014 Ralph et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
Collection InformationThis item is part of the UA Faculty Publications collection. For more information this item or other items in the UA Campus Repository, contact the University of Arizona Libraries at email@example.com.
AbstractPURPOSE:Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) reduce the risk of breast cancer for women at increased risk by 38%. However, uptake is extremely low and the reasons for this are not completely understood. The aims of this study were to utilize time trade-off methods to determine the degree of risk reduction required to make taking SERMs worthwhile to women, and the factors associated with requiring greater risk reduction to take SERMs.METHODS:Women at increased risk of breast cancer (N=107) were recruited from two familial cancer clinics in Australia. Participants completed a questionnaire either online or in pen and paper format. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the data.RESULTS:Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity in the degree of risk reduction required to make taking SERMs worthwhile. Women with higher perceived breast cancer risk and those with stronger intentions to undergo (or who had undergone) an oophorectomy required a smaller degree of risk reduction to consider taking SERMs worthwhile.CONCLUSION:Women at increased familial risk appear motivated to consider SERMs for prevention. A tailored approach to communicating about medical prevention is essential. Health professionals could usefully highlight the absolute (rather than relative) probability of side effects and take into account an individual's perceived (rather than objective) risk of breast cancer.
VersionFinal published version