Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Melanoma high-risk families' perceived health care provider risk communication

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background. Families with a melanoma history are at risk of melanoma. Melanoma survival improves when people are aware of their risk and ways to modify it. We explored at-risk families' perceived risk communication from healthcare providers. Methods. Qualitative description. Results. Participants perceived: (1) few provider discussions of melanoma risk or risk-modifying behaviors; (2) a desire to trust information from providers; (3) the healthcare system constrains communication; and (4) concerns about provider competence and caring regarding worrisome lesions. Conclusions. Providers should provide clear, comprehensive, accurate, and consistent messages about melanoma to persons at high risk; messages also convey competence and caring.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ACS. Cancer Facts and Figures, 2007. American Cancer Society. Available at http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007 PWSecured.pdf. Accessed June 19, 2007.

  2. Kefford RF, Newton Bishop JA, Bergman W, et al. Counseling and DNA testing for individuals perceived to be genetically predisposed to melanoma: a consensus statement of the Melanoma Genetics Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3245–3251.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Greene MH. The genetics of hereditary melanoma and nevi. 1998 update. Cancer. 1999; 86:2464–2477.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goldstein AM, Tucker MA. Genetic epidemiology of familial melanoma. Dermatol Clin. 1995; 13:605–612.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19:3635–3648.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weinstock MA. Early detection of melanoma. JAMA. 2000; 284:886–889.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Weinstock MA. Point-counterpoint. Mass population skin cancer screening can be worthwhile—(if it's done right). J Cutan Med Surg. 1998; 2:129–132.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brady MS, Oliveria SA, Christos PJ, et al. Patterns of detection in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Cancer. 2000; 89:342–347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berwick M, Begg CB, Fine JA, et al. Screening for cutaneous melanoma by skin self-examination. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88:17–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. CDC. Preventing skin cancer: findings of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services on reducing exposure to ultraviolet light and counseling to prevent skin cancer: recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep. 2003; 52:1–18.

  11. National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. National Research Council. Risk communication: working with individuals and communities to weigh the odds, 1995. National Research Council, USPHS. Available at http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/ prevrpt/Archives/95fm1.htm. Accessed November 23, 2007.

  13. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ. 2002; 324:827–830.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fong GT, Rempel LA, Hall PA. Challenges to improving health risk communication in the 21st century: a discussion. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 25:173–176.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rothman AJ, Kiviniemi MT. Treating people with information: an analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 25:44–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 25:149–163.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001; 10:895–898.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Croyle RT, Lerman C. Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 25:59–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Geller AC, Emmons KM, Brooks DR, et al. A randomized trial to improve early detection and prevention practices among siblings of melanoma patients. Cancer. 2006; 107:806–814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hay J, Ostroff J, Martin A, et al. Skin cancer risk discussions in melanoma-affected families. J Cancer Educ. 2005; 20:240–246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolan NC, Ng JS, Martin GJ, et al. Effectiveness of a skin cancer control educational intervention for internal medicine housestaff and attending physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12:531–536.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robinson JD, Silk KJ, Parrott RL, et al. Healthcare providers' sun-protection promotion and at-risk clients' skin-cancer-prevention outcomes. Prev Med. 2004; 38:251–257.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000; 23:334–340.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Morse JM, Strategies for sampling. In, Morse JM, ed. Qualitative Nursing Research-A Contemporary Dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991:127–145.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. RINAH. 1995; 18:179–183.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. DeSantis L, Ugarriza DN. The concept of theme as used in qualitative nursing research. West J Nurs Res. 2000; 22:351–372.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. ATLAS.ti. ATLAS.ti Scientific Software. Element5 Inc.; 2006.

  28. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994:105–117.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Smith VA, DeVellis BM, Kalet A, et al. Encouraging patient adherence: primary care physicians' use of verbal compliance-gaining strategies in medical interviews. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 57:62–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Risk communication in clinical practice: putting cancer in context. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999:25;124–133.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zickmund S, Hillis SL, Barnett MJ, et al. Hepatitis C virus-infected patients report communication problems with physicians. Hepatology. 2004; 39:999–1007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lynch HT, Lynch JF. Familial factors and genetic predisposition to cancer: population studies. Cancer Prev Detect. 1991; 15:49–57.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Christos PJ, Oliveria SA, Masse LC, et al. Skin cancer prevention and detection by nurses: attitudes, perceptions, and barriers. J Cancer Educ. 2004; 19:50–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ashbury FD, Iverson DC, Kralj B. Physician communication skills: results of a survey of general/family practitioners in Newfoundland. Med Educ Online [serial online]. 2001; 6:1. Available at: http:// www.med-ed-online.org

  35. Weinstein ND. Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychol. 1993; 12:324–333.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. American Association of Dermatology. Public Center, 2007. Available at http://www.aad.org/public/index.html. Accessed November 4, 2007.

  37. Robinson JK, Rigel DS. Sun protection attitudes and behaviors of solid-organ transplant recipients. Dermatol Surg. 2004; 30:610–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Buller DB, Buller MK. Approaches to communicating preventive behaviors. Semin Oncol Nurs. 1991; 7:53–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fiscella K, Meldrum S, Franks P, et al. Patient trust: is it related to patient-centered behavior of primary care physicians? Med Care. 2004; 42:1049–1055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Armstrong K. Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: exploring the gap. Risk Anal. 2004; 24:1337–1347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Back A. Patient-physician communication in oncology: what does the evidence show? Oncology. 2006;20:67–74; discussion 77-68, 83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aspinwall LG. Introduction of section: persuasion for the purpose of cancer risk reduction: understanding responses to risk communications. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25:88–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. IOM. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Speaking of Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cherry DK, Woodwell DA, Rechtsteiner EA. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2005 summary. Adv Data. 2007:1–39.

  45. Rodgers JE. Introduction of section: overarching considerations in risk communications: romancing the message. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999:25;21–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hart A, Henwood F, Wyatt S. The role of the Internet in patient-practitioner relationships: findings from a qualitative research study. J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6(3):e36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rimer BK, Glassman B. Is there a use for tailored print communications in cancer risk communication? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 25:140–148.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Naylor M, Robinson JK. Sunscreen, sun protection, and our many failures. Arch Dermatol. 2005; 141:1025–1027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Arkin EB. Cancer risk communication—what we know. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 25:182–185.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arizona College of Nursing Tucson, AZ

    Lois J. Loescher PhD, RN & Janice D. Crist PhD, RN

  2. Skin Cancer Institute, Arizona Cancer Center, Tuscon, AZ

    Lois J. Loescher PhD, RN, Lee Cranmer MD, PhD, Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski MD & James A Warneke MD

Authors
  1. Lois J. Loescher PhD, RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janice D. Crist PhD, RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lee Cranmer MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James A Warneke MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lois J. Loescher PhD, RN.

Additional information

Supported by the National Cancer Institute (NIH-NCI 1K07CA106996) (LJL).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Loescher, L.J., Crist, J.D., Cranmer, L. et al. Melanoma high-risk families' perceived health care provider risk communication. J Canc Educ 24, 301–307 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/08858190902997290

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08858190902997290

Keywords

Search

Navigation