Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling the dyadic effects of parenting, stress, and coping on parent–child communication in families tested for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer risk

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Familial Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genetic testing for BRCA genes, associated with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer risk, is an accepted cancer control strategy. BRCA genetic testing has both medical and psychosocial implications for individuals seeking testing and their family members. However, promoting open and adaptive communication about cancer risk in the family is challenging for parents of minor children. Using prospective data collected from mothers undergoing BRCA genetic testing and their untested co-parents (N = 102 parenting dyads), we examined how maternal and co-parent characteristics independently and conjointly influenced the overall quality of parent–child communication with minor children. Statistical associations were tested in accordance with the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model. Significant Actor effects were observed among mothers, such that open parent–child communication prior to genetic testing was positively associated with open communication 6 months following receipt of genetic test results; and among co-parents, more open parent–child communication at baseline and greater perceived quality of the parenting relationship were associated with more open parent–child communication at follow-up. Partner effects were also observed: co-parents’ baseline communication and confidence in their ability to communicate with their minor children about genetic testing was positively associated with open maternal parent–child communication at follow-up. These results demonstrate that for families facing the prospect of cancer genetic testing, perceptions and behaviors of both members of child-rearing couples have important implications for the overall quality of communication with their minor children, including communication about cancer risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moyer VA (2014) Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160:271–281. doi:10.7326/M13-2747

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2015) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Version 2.2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2015

  3. Robson ME, Storm CD, Weitzel J, Wollins DS, Offit K (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 28:893–901. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.27.0660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S et al (2003) Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72:1117–1130. doi:10.1086/375033

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Butow PN, Lobb EA, Meiser B, Barratt A, Tucker KM (2003) Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review. Med J Aust 178:77–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cameron LD, Muller C (2009) Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing. Curr Opin Psychiatry 22:218–223. doi:10.1097/YCO.0b013e3283252d80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamilton JG, Lobel M, Moyer A (2009) Emotional distress following genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol 28:510–518. doi:10.1037/a0014778

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Metcalfe KA, Liede A, Trinkaus M, Hanna D, Narod SA (2002) Evaluation of the needs of spouses of female carriers of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Clin Genet 62:464–469

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DeMarco TA, McKinnon WC (2006) Life after BRCA1/2 testing: family communication and support issues. Breast Dis 27:127–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Patenaude AF (2005) Genetic testing for cancer: psychological approaches for helping patients and families. American Psychological Association, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Tercyak KP (2010) Handbook of genomics and the family: psychosocial context for children and adolescents. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Peterson SK (2005) The role of the family in genetic testing: theoretical perspectives, current knowledge, and future directions. Health Educ Behav 32:627–639. doi:10.1177/1090198105278751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koehly LM, Peters JA, Kenen R et al (2009) Characteristics of health information gatherers, disseminators, and blockers within families at risk of hereditary cancer: implications for family health communication interventions. Am J Public Health 99:2203–2209. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.154096

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Palmquist AE, Koehly LM, Peterson SK, Shegog M, Vernon SW, Gritz ER (2010) “The cancer bond”: exploring the formation of cancer risk perception in families with Lynch syndrome. J Genet Couns 19:473–486. doi:10.1007/s10897-010-9299-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Visser A, Huizinga GA, van der Graaf WT, Hoekstra HJ, Hoekstra-Weebers JE (2004) The impact of parental cancer on children and the family: a review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev 30:683–694. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2004.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, Streisand R, Lerman C (2001) Psychological issues among children of hereditary breast cancer gene (BRCA1/2) testing participants. Psychooncology 10:336–346. doi:10.1002/pon.531

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Metcalfe A, Coad J, Plumridge GM, Gill P, Farndon P (2008) Family communication between children and their parents about inherited genetic conditions: a meta-synthesis of the research. Eur J Hum Genet 16:1193–1200. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ormond KE, Mills PL, Lester LA, Ross LF (2003) Effect of family history on disclosure patterns of cystic fibrosis carrier status. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 119C:70–77. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.10008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sorenson JR, Jennings-Grant T, Newman J (2003) Communication about carrier testing within hemophilia A families. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 119C:3–10. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.10001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Forrest K, Simpson SA, Wilson BJ et al (2003) To tell or not to tell: barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Clin Genet 64:317–326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McKibbin M, Ahmed M, Allsop MJ et al (2014) Current understanding of genetics and genetic testing and information needs and preferences of adults with inherited retinal disease. Eur J Hum Genet 22:1058–1062. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.296

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen LL, Stolerman M, Walsh C, Wasserman D, Dolan SM (2012) Challenges of genetic testing in adolescents with cardiac arrhythmia syndromes. J Med Ethics 38:163–167. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ et al (2007) Family system characteristics and psychological adjustment to cancer susceptibility genetic testing: a prospective study. Clin Genet 71:35–42. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2007.00731.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McInerney-Leo A, Biesecker BB, Hadley DW et al (2005) BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families II: impact on relationships. Am J Med Genet A 133A:165–169. doi:10.1037/a0033418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stroup AM, Smith KR (2007) Familial effects of BRCA1 genetic mutation testing: changes in perceived family functioning. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16:135–141. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tercyak KP, Hughes C, Main D et al (2001) Parental communication of BRCA1/2 genetic test results to children. Patient Educ Couns 42:213–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, DeMarco TA, Brogan BM, Lerman C (2002) Parent–child factors and their effect on communicating BRCA1/2 test results to children. Patient Educ Couns 47:145–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tercyak KP, Mays D, DeMarco TA et al (2013) Decisional outcomes of maternal disclosure of BRCA1/2 genetic test results to children. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22:1260–1266. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0198

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Farkas Patenaude A, DeMarco TA, Peshkin BN et al (2013) Talking to children about maternal BRCA1/2 genetic test results: a qualitative study of parental perceptions and advice. J Genet Couns 22:303–314. doi:10.1007/s10897-012-9549-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sharff ME, DeMarco TA, Mays D et al (2012) Parenting through genetic uncertainty: themes in the disclosure of breast cancer risk information to children. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 16:376–382. doi:10.1089/gtmb.2011.0154

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. DeMarco TA, Peshkin BN, Valdimarsdottir HB, Patenaude AF, Schneider KA, Tercyak KP (2008) Role of parenting relationship quality in communicating about maternal BRCA1/2 genetic test results with children. J Genet Couns 17:283–287. doi:10.1007/s10897-007-9147-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Weissman S, Cohen RS (1985) The parenting alliance and adolescence. Adolesc Psychiatry 12:24–45

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rolland JS, Williams JK (2005) Toward a biopsychosocial model for 21st-century genetics. Fam Process 44:3–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL (2006) Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kenny DA, Ledermann T (2010) Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. J Fam Psychol 24:359–366. doi:10.1037/a0019651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. DeMarco TA, Nusbaum RH, Peshkin BN et al (2010) Prevalence and correlates of mothers and fathers attending pretest cancer genetic counseling together. Patient Educ Couns 78:29–33. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, DeMarco TA et al (2007) Information needs of mothers regarding communicating BRCA1/2 cancer genetic test results to their children. Genet Test 11:249–255. doi:10.1089/gte.2006.0534

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Peshkin BN, DeMarco TA, Garber JE et al (2009) Brief assessment of parents’ attitudes toward testing minor children for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer genes: development and validation of the Pediatric BRCA1/2 Testing Attitudes Scale (P-TAS). J Pediatr Psychol 34:627–638. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsn033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mays D, DeMarco TA, Luta G et al (2014) Distress and the parenting dynamic among BRCA1/2 tested mothers and their partners. Health Psychol 33:765–773. doi:10.1037/a0033418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Abidin RR, Konold TR (1999) Parenting alliance measure™ (PAM™): professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa

    Google Scholar 

  41. Konold TR, Abidin RR (2001) Parenting alliance: a multifactor perspective. Assessment 8:47–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Halbert CH, Schwartz MD, Wenzel L et al (2004) Predictors of cognitive appraisals following genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Behav Med 27:373–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. O’Neill SC, Rini C, Goldsmith RE, Valdimarsdottir H, Cohen LH, Schwartz MD (2009) Distress among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 results: 12-month outcomes. Psychooncology 18:1088–1096. doi:10.1002/pon.1467

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Barnes HL, Olson DH (1982) Parent–Adolescent Communication Scale. In: Olson DH, McCubbin HI, Barnes HL (eds) Family inventories: inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life-cycle. Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, pp 33–48

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hasson-Ohayon I, Goldzweig G, Braun M, Galinsky D (2010) Women with advanced breast cancer and their spouses: diversity of support and psychological distress. Psychooncology 19:1195–1204. doi:10.1002/pon.1678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ et al (2007) A prospective study of the impact of genetic susceptibility testing for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC on family relationships. Psychooncology 16:320–328. doi:10.1002/pon.1062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cho OH, Yoo YS, Hwang KH (2015) Comparison of parent–child communication patterns and parental role satisfaction among mothers with and without breast cancer. Appl Nurs Res 28:163–168. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2014.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mazzeschi C, Pazzagli C, Laghezza L, De GG, Reboldi G, De FP (2013) Parental alliance and family functioning in pediatric obesity from both parents’ perspectives. J Dev Behav Pediatr 34:583–588. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e3182a50a89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Phillips-Salimi CR, Robb SL, Monahan PO, Dossey A, Haase JE (2014) Perceptions of communication, family adaptability and cohesion: a comparison of adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer and their parents. Int J Adolesc Med Health 26:19–26. doi:10.1515/ijamh-2012-0105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Robertson HA, Kutcher SP, Bird D, Grasswick L (2001) Impact of early onset bipolar disorder on family functioning: adolescents’ perceptions of family dynamics, communication, and problems. J Affect Disord 66:25–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sales JM, Milhausen RR, Wingood GM, Diclemente RJ, Salazar LF, Crosby RA (2008) Validation of a Parent–Adolescent Communication Scale for use in STD/HIV prevention interventions. Health Educ Behav 35:332–345. doi:10.1177/1090198106293524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants R01HG02686 and K18HG006754 to Kenneth P. Tercyak. Jada G. Hamilton was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant P30CA08748. We would like to thank Judy Garber, Andrea Patenaude, Beth Peshkin, and Katherine Schneider for their contributions to this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Jada G. Hamilton

  2. Department of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA

    Darren Mays & Kenneth P. Tercyak

  3. Division of Medical Genomics, Inova Translational Medicine Institute, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Tiffani DeMarco

  4. Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA

    Kenneth P. Tercyak

  5. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA

    Darren Mays & Kenneth P. Tercyak

Authors
  1. Jada G. Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darren Mays
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tiffani DeMarco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kenneth P. Tercyak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth P. Tercyak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hamilton, J.G., Mays, D., DeMarco, T. et al. Modeling the dyadic effects of parenting, stress, and coping on parent–child communication in families tested for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer risk. Familial Cancer 15, 513–522 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-016-9876-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-016-9876-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation