Ignite Creation Date:
2024-05-06 @ 3:36 PM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 1:52 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT04683068
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2022-05-13
First Post:
2020-12-21
Brief Title:
Promoting Mens Adherence to BRCA12 Germline Genetic Testing
Sponsor:
European Institute of Oncology
Organization:
European Institute of Oncology
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Self-referred Message to Family-referred Message Promoting Mens Adherence to Evidence-based Guidelines on BRCA12 Germline Genetic Testing a Study Protocol
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2022-05
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
BRCA-MEN
Brief Summary:
BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome HBOC increases the relative and absolute risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer and to a lesser extent prostate and pancreatic cancer Men face BRCA-related cancer risks as women do although with a different magnitude and they may also transmit the mutations to their children Notwithstanding men have not received much attention since now They are under-tested compared to women and the communication is not tailored on their needs Research on the psychological determinants of mens informed decision-making is particularly lacking as well as experimental evidence on the efficacy of tailored messages on mens needs Applying principles of the Health Action Process Approach HAPA the present protocol proposes a study with the aim to test psychological variables influencing mens decision-making Moreover the proposed research intends to test the efficacy of two messages through a randomized experimental study A total of 264 participants will be involved among the mens relatives of women with verified germline mutations The study entails a pre- post- evaluation with randomization of the participants in two conditions corresponding to the two messages The expected results provide answers related to the impact of action self-efficacy outcome expectancy personal or familiar risk perception health risk aversion intolerance of uncertainty perceived barriers and coping self-efficacy on informed decision-making Data gathered from this study may inform health care providers policymakers and public health managers about the communication strategy for men and about the psychological variables influencing decision-making
Detailed Description:
Background As for other pathogenic gene mutations 12 germline mutations in BRCA1- and BRCA2 genes BReast CAncer 1 gene and BReast CAncer 2 gene predispose carriers to an increased suscepti-bility in developing breast and ovarian cancer 3 but also prostate pancreatic cancer and mela-noma 4 BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner this means that offspring of an individual with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation have a 50 chance of inheriting the variant 56 and the same probability of passing it to the progeny BRCA12 mutations have no gender distinction 7 both men and women can inherit the mutation although it exposes them to different risks
Men with BRCA12 mutations can incur a lifetime risk of up to 68 percent for breast cancer and between 6 and 15 percent for prostate cancer 68 These risks are particularly higher when BRCA2 gene is involved However men do not receive the same attention as women 9 In particular women can be tested to search BRCA1 or BRCA2 unknown germline mutations especially when suffering from breast andor ovarian cancer or to search known BRCA12 germline mutations previously identified in the family ie cascade screening Instead men are mainly involved in cascade screening and rarely they are tested for BRCA12 germline mutations 10 Very recently the guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 11 have suggested to con-sider patients with pancreatic and prostatic cancers as eligible for genetic testing for BRCA germline mutations However such a recommendation is not yet routine for the test proposal
Some socio-cultural aspects have been related to the mens attitude toward BRCA12 mutations and genetic testing For example Pritchard 12 suggested that BRCA 12 mutations are generally associated with female gender He also pointed out that the name of the associated Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome HBOC creates a confusion since breast and ovarian cancers are considered a female matter by layperson 18 Similarly others 1314 have found that fear of stigmatization is one obstacle for the mens decision-making To date there are no studies applying a strong theoretical rationale that have systematically tested which are the psychological variables influencing mens informed decisions for genetic testing when facing BRCA-related mutations Moreover to the best of our knowledge there are no studies testing what is the better communication strategy to inform mens decision-making Therefore the present study aims to fill these gaps with an experimental study with a longitudinal component First applying principles of the Health Action Process Approach HAPA a motivational inclined theory that explains changes in behaviors will be tested what psychological determinants influence the decision to undergo a genetic test for a germline BRCA mutations The role of intolerance to the uncertainty and the health risk attitudes will be explored The HAPA model has been chosen because it is an evolution of the first stadial models of health psychology 15 and it assumes that individuals pass through qualitatively different stages of psychological elaboration when they have to adopt new health behaviors The other aim the proposed study is to test two different narrative messages in order to understand which is the most efficient in informing mens decision-making
Principles of the Health Action Process Approach HAPA According to the Health Action Process Approach 16 there are several variables involved in the implementation of new health behaviors Specifically it is possible to identify risk perception outcome expectancies and action self-efficacy as predisposing factors that have an impact on the informed decision this is considered the motivation phase in which subjects begin to form an intention In this model the intention to perform a specific health behavior is considered as a middle-level mediator between the variables considered in the motivation phase and those in the volition phase
Furthermore according to this model volition factors involve planning that is further specified as coping and action planning and coping self-efficacy Volition factors are considered as be-ing influential in the subsequent phase and they are the most proximal predictors to actual behavior decisions This second phase ie the volition phase should be subdivided in pre-action phase in which the previous mentioned coping and action planning and coping self-efficacy take place and action phase ending with a behavior
This model was tested in several health contexts 1718 in particular for smoking behavior 161920 physical activity 2122 dietary 2324 and also in cancer-related screening behavior 25 Those studies demonstrated the efficacy of the theory in explaining the initiation and maintenance of such health preventive behaviors Together with the principles of the HAPA model the present study aims to understand whether other psychological factors may explain mens decision making regarding genetic testing for BRCA12 germline mutations For this reason two attitudinal factors are examined intolerance of uncertainty and health risk attitudes
When people face with a potential threat for their health one key element affecting their subsequent decisions and behaviors is how much they feel certain or uncertain regarding the threat In our case a man who is considering the possibility to undergo a genetic test for BRCA germline mutations is facing with two different types of uncertainty The first one is the proximal uncertain-ty due to the result of the genetic test itself The second one is the distal uncertainty depending on the risk to develop a cancer if a germline mutation would be found The intention to undergo a genetic test for a germline mutation may be therefore determined by the way in which the individual manages the uncertainty due to the discovery of a possible negative result ie the presence of a mutation and to the future consequences of the germline mutation
Intolerance of Uncertainty IU is a trait characteristic of individuals who are not able to tolerate the aversive reactions triggered by a perceived lack of sufficient information or by an is-sue that can have more than one solution 26 Individuals with low tolerance for uncertainty tend to perceive the threat as a source of discomfort and to react negatively to it 27 Some studies investigated the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty IU and the attitude to undergo health monitoring in particular cancer-related screening 2829 In particular Tan and colleagues showed that intolerance of uncertainty may function as an important determinant of anxiety among men pursuing active surveillance for prostate cancer 28 One qualitative study in lung cancer screening decision-making showed that some participants sought to decrease uncertainty through lung cancer screening and if needed with additional testing others declined the screening in order to avoid the uncertainty associated with undefined results 30 Indeed intolerance of uncertainty consists of two dimensions the first one the desire for predictability is an active strategy to manage the uncertainty that is perceived as intolerable and leads to search for as much information as possible about the threat to restore a balance Rosen and colleagues 31 showed that high levels of IU were associated with an increase in health monitoring and screening other studies suggested that searching for threat-related information may be driven by the desire to reduce uncertainty 3233 The second one called uncertainty paralysis is configured as an avoidance strategy and leads to inability to act because of the uncertainty 26
Another construct related to the previous one at least in the health framework is the attitude toward health risk In order to contrast the perception of significant uncertainty people choose responses and act in a certain way and this is defined as the personal attitude toward health risk In fact people differ in their attitude towards health risks and this affects decision making regarding preventive behaviors eg screening physical activity and risky behaviors eg surgery 34 Taken together all this evidence suggest that IU and health risk attitudes may play a role when a man is facing with the decision to undergo a genetic test to detect BRCA germline mutation because there are similar mutations in the family Since men with BRCA-related cancer risks deal with probabilistic and complex information 3536 both of these attitudinal factors can have an effect on the implementation of health behaviors and therefore can influence the informed decision to undergo cascade screening for BRCA12 mutations
How to inform mens decision making for BRCA12 germline mutations genetic testing The other aim is to investigate how to inform mens decision-making Low levels of mens knowledge regarding BRCA12 germline mutations is found as one of the most important problems in this field 37 Therefore one main research achievement may be to find the right way to correctly inform them The present study aims to test two different messages tailored to mens specific needs and to understand what is the best way to inform them Although narrative approaches showed efficacy in promoting health behavioral intentions 38 and in increasing adherence to cancer screening 39 in particular its utility for improving mens BRCA cascade screen-ing remains unexplored The present research intends to explore whether narrative messages can be effective in informing mens decision-making
In particular two features are fundamental in narrative strategies context the narrative perspective and the framing The first one is a fundamental story feature and changes how information is delivered to the audience researchers identified that first-person narrative messages are able to increase self-identity and to promote the assimilation of the theme better than third-person narratives 40 Therefore the present study chooses to create narrative messages with a first-person feature Regarding the framing messages can either emphasize negative consequences losses or positive outcomes gains of a given action Prospect theory 41 posits that in general people are more likely to take risks when presented with a loss-framed message and the contrary for a gain-framed message But regarding disease prevention behaviors like smoking cessation 61 and skin cancer prevention 42 researchers have suggested an advantage albeit small of a gain frame over a loss frame 43 Therefore the present study chooses to create narrative messages oriented to a gain frame
Furthermore applying the Uncertainty Management Theory 44 a social psychological approach to uncertainty Rauscher et al 13 investigated how men with increased BRCA-related cancer risk approach the individual and familial uncertainty related to that pathogenic variant Those qualitative results showed that mens primary concern when managing BRCA-related cancer risks is the aversive consequences of the discovery of a germline mutation for their family 45 Their focus on familial uncertainty management is maybe due to the difficulties encountered in the management of their own risk due to the lack of information and management options In the end the authors suggested that genetic counseling would benefit from a family focus Also Hallowell and colleagues 46 highlighted the role of family member mother partner or children in mens decision-making about BRCA testing In particular they showed how mens decision to have genetic testing was influenced by the obligations perceived from family members primarily their children
Based on these premises this study proposes to test the effectiveness of two first-person gain-framed messages one narrating a self-referred story and the other a family-referred story The effectiveness will be measured in terms of one or both messages ability to predict the intention to undergo genetic screening
Objectives
We hypothesize the following relationships figure 1 shows the tested model
1 HP1 higher risk perception positive outcome expectations and action self-efficacy longitudinally predict the intention and the action to undergo a genetic test for BRCA germline mutations
2 HP2 higher health risk attitude and low intolerance to uncertainty have a longitudinal influence on predicted higher intention planning and action initiation
3 HP3 higher intention and coping self-efficacy longitudinally predict higher planning
4 HP4 higher planning ie action planning coping planning and coping self-efficacy longitudinally predict higher action initiation
5 Based on results by Rauscher et al 13 and Hallowell and colleagues 46 we formulated a research question RQ1 is there any difference between personal outcome expectations and family outcome expectations in their association with intention
6 HP5 family-referred narrative gain-framed message vs self-referred narrative gain-framed message will produce greater intention and action to undergo genetic testing for BRCA 12 germline mutations in at-risk men
Method Design The research will involve three phases with results from each phase informing the next phase see Figure 2 In the first phase a literature review will be performed to identify other psychological variables influencing individuals adherence to evidence based guidelines on BRCA12 germline genetic testing Subsequently a pilot survey will be created in order to test its feasibility and un-derstandability for participants
The third and final phase entails a RCT with participants receiving one of the two conditions ie self-referred narrative framed message family-referred narrative framed message and it tests the main hypotheses and research question of the study Participants will answer to several questions before and after the message exposure
Participants and study setting Participants are 264 males relatives of women with BRCA1 andor BRCA2 germline mutations who are patients of the Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics at the European Institute of Oncology IEO in Milan The IEO is a specialized Hospital and an internationally recognized Cancer Center located in Italy working on research prevention diagnosis and treatment of cancer
Sample size and power calculation The sample size is determined through an a priori power analysis using GPower 40 47 Among the imputed parameters it was chosen to include partial η2 05 alpha lower than 05 power d 1-B 70 Considering that Luszczynska et al 48 found a η2 01 η2 05 is a prudential choice Two groups corresponding to the two experimental conditions of the study and 7 covariates were included The final estimated number of participants is 264 132 in each group It should be noted that changing the number of covariates does not change the total number of participants
Recruitment According to the registry of the Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics IEO all women with BRCA1 andor BRCA2 germline mutations with at least a male relative will be reached by a phone call andor an email During the first contact a member of the research team informs the female patients about the research purposes and the procedure The researcher will then ask the women to share the information with their male relatives and to invite him them to participate in the research All the information about the research including an invitation letter an information sheet and the consent form will be also sent by email to the women If those relatives want to be contacted to participate in the study a researcher calls them and shares with them the information sheet the informed consent and the link to the online survey Participants will sign the informed consent before starting to fill the survey and data collection will be done through an online survey via the use of an identifier In order to promote participant retention and complete follow-up participants will be prompted to respond calling them by phone or contacting them by email
Randomization Participants who meet the study inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to receive one of the two conditions Randomization will occur during T1 immediately after the data collection of psychological measures The participants will not be informed of the condition to which they have been allocated until the message itself will be shown
Time 1 assessment All participants will complete the T1 assessment via an online survey which will be available for a two-week period The T1 measures will include demographic health status risk perception health risk aversion and intolerance of uncertainty After this evaluation participants will be ran-domized and exposed to one message A manipulation check the evaluation of the perceived qual-ity of the information presented on the messages positive outcome expectations action self-efficacy benefit for genetic test will be then collected
Intervention Time 2 assessment Two weeks later via an online survey participants reply to questions on the intention to undergo germline genetic testing coping self-efficacy action planning and coping planning
Time 3 assessment Starting from the end of T2 until 3 months later data on action initiation will be collected ie genet-ic test for BRCA12 gene germline mutations
Measures T1 measures Before the randomization all participants answer several questions as follows
Demographic Self-reported age education occupation degree of relationship with the woman with BRCA12 genes germline mutation household composition
Health Status Self-reported general health and existing diagnosis for the chronic disease will be investigated with a single item each 49 Response options for general health conditions will be on a 5-point Likert scale The response options for the item on the existing chronic disease will be binary coded no - yes specify
Risk perception Relative risk perception regarding the possibility to develop breast prostatic and pancreatic cancer will be investigated with one item each 5051 Response options are on a 7-point Likert scale
Health Risk aversion The six items of the Health Risk Attitude 52 will be administered to assess how a person would resolve risky health decisions Response options are on a 7-point Likert scale
Intolerance of Uncertainty The items of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 53 will be applied to measure two dimensions of the intolerance of ambiguity which are the desire of predictability and uncertainty paralysis Response options are on a 5-point Likert scale
T2 measures After the message exposure participants reply to several questions as follows
Manipulation check Two items created ad hoc evaluate whether participants have read and understood the message content Multiple-choice answers are used with one correct answer and two incorrect answers as distractors Participants who fail to answer those questions will be excluded from the analyses
Perceived Quality of the Message Three items evaluate whether the message is credible convincing and persuasive Response options are on a 7-point Likert scale
Positive Outcome Expectation Eight items will be created ad hoc for this research evaluating positive outcome expectations regarding the participant himself 4 items and his family members 4 items The response option will be on a 5-point Likert scale
Action Self-Efficacy According to Schwarzer Luszczynskas 16 indications self-efficacy will be assessed through three items as the capability of keeping up with the behavior by implementing coping strategies Response option will be on a 5-point Likert scale
Benefit for Genetic Test A 5-digit semantic differential will be applied to measure the perceived benefit for genetic tests Examples of the proposed adjectives are important relevant useful benefit
Intention to undergo genetic testing Coping Self-efficacy Three items created ad hoc for the present research evaluate whether the individual feels to be capable of tackling the possible obstacles and difficulties that could make it difficult to undergo genetic screening Response options are on a 5-point Likert scale
Action planning Three items developed ad hoc for the present research will ask if the participant has planned when how and where to undergo the genetic test for BRCA12 mutations The response option will be on a 4-point Likert scale
Coping Planning Four items developed ad hoc for the present research will ask how much the participant thinks to encounter in planning the action The response option will be on a 5-point Likert scale
T3 measures Action Information on the action initiation ie a genetic test for BRCA12 germline mutations will be collected when the participant takes the appointment for the genetic test and receives the test
References
1 Corso G Montagna G Figueiredo J Vecchia C La Romario UF Fernandes MS et al Heredi-tary gastric and breast cancer syndromes related to CDH1 germline mutation A multidisciplinary clinical review Cancers Basel MDPI AG 2020 p 1-25
2 Corso G Bonanni B Veronesi P Galimberti V Mutual exclusion of CDH1 and BRCA germline mutations in the pathway of hereditary breast cancer Arch Gynecol Obstet Springer Verlag 2018 p 1067-8
3 Corso G Feroce I Intra M Toesca A Magnoni F Sargenti M et al BRCA12 germline mis-sense mutations A systematic review Eur J Cancer Prev Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2018 p 279-86
4 Nyberg T Frost D Barrowdale D Evans DG Bancroft E Adlard J et al Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers A Prospective Cohort Study Eur Urol Elsevier BV 20207724-35
5 Kuchenbaecker KB Hopper JL Barnes DR Phillips KA Mooij TM Roos-Blom MJ et al Risks of breast ovarian and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers JAMA - J Am Med Assoc American Medical Association 20173172402-16
6 Petrucelli N Daly MB Pal T BRCA1- and BRCA2-Associated Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer GeneReviews University of Washington Seattle 1993
7 Silvestri V Leslie G Barnes DR Agnarsson BA Aittomäki K Alducci E et al Characteriza-tion of the Cancer Spectrum in Men with Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants Re-sults from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA12 CIMBA JAMA Oncol American Medical Association 20206
8 Oh M Alkhushaym N Fallatah S Althagafi A Aljadeed R Alsowaida Y et al The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk frequency and mortality A meta-analysis Prostate John Wiley and Sons Inc 201979880-95
9 da Silva TL Male breast cancer Medical and psychological management in comparison to fe-male breast cancer A review Cancer Treat Commun Elsevier Ltd 2016 p 23-34
10 Marabelli M Calvello M Bonanni B Test more men for BRCA genes Nature 2019573346
11 Daly MB Pilarski R Yurgelun MB Berry MP Buys SS Dickson P et al Geneticfamilial high-risk assessment Breast ovarian and pancreatic version 12020 featured updates to the NCCN guidelines JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw Harborside Press 202018380-91
12 Pritchard CC New name for breast-cancer syndrome could help to save lives Nature Nature Research 2019 p 27-9
13 Rauscher EA Dean M Campbell-Salome G Barbour JB How do we rally around the one who was positive Familial uncertainty management in the context of men managing BRCA-related cancer risks Soc Sci Med Elsevier Ltd 2019242112592
14 Strømsvik N Råheim M Yen N Gjengedal E Men in the womens world of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer-a systematic review Fam Cancer Springer 20098221-9
15 Prochaska JO Di Clemente CC Transtheoretical therapy Toward a more integrative model of change Psychotherapy American Psychological Association APA 198219276-88
16 Schwarzer R Luszczynska A The Health Action Process Approach Eur Psychol 200813141-51
17 Zhang CQ Zhang R Schwarzer R Hagger MS A Meta-Analysis of the Health Action Process Approach Heal Psychol 2019
18 Mohammadi Zeidi I morshedi H shokohi abdolah Application of the Health Action Process Approach HAPA Model to Determine Factors Affecting Physical Activity in Hypertensive Pa-tients J Jiroft Univ Med Sci Journal of Jiroft University of Medical Sciences 20207349-60
19 Radtke T Scholz U Keller R Hornung R Smoking is ok as long as I eat healthily Compensa-tory Health Beliefs and their role for intentions and smoking within the Health Action Process Ap-proach Psychol Heal 20122791-107
20 Scholz U Nagy G Göhner W Luszczynska A Kliegel M Changes in self-regulatory cogni-tions as predictors of changes in smoking and nutrition behaviour Psychol Heal 200924545-61
21 Barg CJ Latimer AE Pomery EA Rivers SE Rench TA Prapavessis H et al Examining pre-dictors of physical activity among inactive middle-aged women An application of the health ac-tion process approach Psychol Heal Routledge 201227829-45
22 Parschau L Barz M Richert J Knoll N Lippke S Schwarzer R Physical activity among adults with obesity Testing the health action process approach Rehabil Psychol American Psychologi-cal Association Inc 20145942-9
23 Steca P Pancani L Greco A DAddario M Magrin ME Miglioretti M et al Changes in Die-tary Behavior among Coronary and Hypertensive Patients A Longitudinal Investigation Using the Health Action Process Approach Appl Psychol Heal Well-Being Wiley-Blackwell 20157316-39
24 Chiu C-Y Lynch RT Chan F Rose L The Health Action Process Approach as a Motivational Model of Dietary Self-Management for People With Multiple Sclerosis Rehabil Couns Bull SAGE PublicationsSage CA Los Angeles CA 20125648-61
25 Daniel AO Omorogieva Enoma I Omobude-Idiado SN Application of Protection Motivation Theory PMT and Health Action Process Approach HAPA in promoting womens adaptive en-gagement towards breast self examination Acad Res Int 20145291
26 Carleton RN Fear of the unknown One fear to rule them all J Anxiety Disord Elsevier Ltd 2016 p 5-21
27 Buhr K Dugas MJ Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry J Anxiety Disord J Anxiety Disord 200620222-36
28 Tan H-J Marks LS Hoyt MA Kwan L Filson CP Macairan M et al The Relationship be-tween Intolerance of Uncertainty and Anxiety in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer J Urol Elsevier Inc 20161951724-30
29 Taber JM Klein WMP Ferrer RA Han PKJ Lewis KL Biesecker LG et al Perceived ambi-guity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results J Behav Med Springer New York LLC 201538715-26
30 Schapira MM Aggarwal C Akers S Aysola J Imbert D Langer C et al How patients view lung cancer screening The role of uncertainty in medical decision making Ann Am Thorac Soc American Thoracic Society 2016131969-76
31 Rosen NO Knäuper B Sammut J Do individual differences in intolerance of uncertainty af-fect health monitoring Psychol Heal Routledge 200722413-30
32 Hock M Krohne HW Kaiser J Coping Dispositions and the Processing of Ambiguous Stimuli J Pers Soc Psychol American Psychological Association Inc 1996701052-66
33 Krohne HW Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research Atten Avoid Strateg coping with aversiveness 1993
34 Van Osch SMC Stiggelbout AM The development of the Health-Risk Attitude Scale 2007
35 Oliveri S Pravettoni G Capturing how individuals perceive genetic risk information a phe-nomenological perspective J Risk Res Routledge 201821259-67
36 Oliveri S Scotto L Ongaro G Triberti S Guiddi P Pravettoni G You do not get cancer by chance Communicating the role of environmental causes in cancer diseases and the risk of a guilt rhetoric Psychooncology John Wiley and Sons Ltd 2019282422-4
37 Skop M Lorentz J Jassi M Vesprini D Einstein G Guys Dont Have Breasts The Lived Experience of Men Who Have BRCA Gene Mutations and Are at Risk for Male Breast Cancer Am J Mens Health SAGE Publications Inc 201812961-72
38 Braddock K Dillard JP Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on be-liefs attitudes intentions and behaviors Commun Monogr Routledge 201683446-67
39 Jensen JD King AJ Carcioppolo N Krakow M Samadder NJ Morgan S Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50-75 A ran-domized controlled trial Soc Sci Med 201410431-40
40 van Peer W Maat HP Narrative perspective and the interpretation of characters motives Lang Lit Int J Stylist SAGE Publications Ltd 200110229-41
41 Kahneman D Tversky A Prospect Theory An Analysis of Decision Under Risk 2013 p 99-127
42 OKeefe DJ Jensen JD The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors A meta-analytic review J Health Commun Taylor Francis Group 2007 p 623-44
43 Kim HK Lee TK Conditional Effects of Gain-Loss-Framed Narratives among Current Smok-ers at Different Stages of Change J Health Commun Taylor and Francis Inc 201722990-8
44 Brashers DE Communication and Uncertainty Management J Commun Oxford University Press OUP 200151477-97
45 Hesse-Biber S An C Within-Gender Differences in Medical Decision Making Among Male Carriers of the BRCA Genetic Mutation for Hereditary Breast Cancer Am J Mens Health SAGE Publications Inc 2017111444-59
46 Hallowell N Ardern-Jones A Eeles R Foster C Lucassen A Moynihan C et al Mens Deci-sion-Making About Predictive BRCA12 Testing The Role of Family J Genet Couns John Wiley Sons Ltd 200514207-17
47 Faul F Erdfelder E Lang AG Buchner A GPower 3 A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social behavioral and biomedical sciences Behav Res Methods Psychonomic Society Inc 2007 p 175-91
48 Luszczynska A Schwarzer R Lippke S Mazurkiewicz M Self-efficacy as a moderator of the planning-behaviour relationship in interventions designed to promote physical activity Psychol Heal Psychol Health 201126151-66
49 Shim M Kelly B Hornik R Cancer information scanning and seeking behavior is associated with knowledge lifestyle choices and screening J Health Commun J Health Commun 200611157-72
50 Renner B Hindsight bias after receiving self-relevant health risk information A motivational perspective Memory Taylor Francis Group 200311455-72
51 Renner B Biased Reasoning Adaptive Responses to Health Risk Feedback Personal Soc Psy-chol Bull Pers Soc Psychol Bull 200430384-96
52 Dieteren CM Brouwer WBF Van Exel J How do combinations of unhealthy behaviors relate to attitudinal factors and subjective health among the adult population in the Netherlands BMC Public Health BioMed Central Ltd 202020441
53 Bottesi G Ghisi M Novara C Bertocchi J e Ilaria MB Dominicis D et al Intolerance of un-certainty scale IUS-27 e IUS-12 Due studi preliminari Psicoter Cogn e Comport 201521345-65
Men with BRCA12 mutations can incur a lifetime risk of up to 68 percent for breast cancer and between 6 and 15 percent for prostate cancer 68 These risks are particularly higher when BRCA2 gene is involved However men do not receive the same attention as women 9 In particular women can be tested to search BRCA1 or BRCA2 unknown germline mutations especially when suffering from breast andor ovarian cancer or to search known BRCA12 germline mutations previously identified in the family ie cascade screening Instead men are mainly involved in cascade screening and rarely they are tested for BRCA12 germline mutations 10 Very recently the guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 11 have suggested to con-sider patients with pancreatic and prostatic cancers as eligible for genetic testing for BRCA germline mutations However such a recommendation is not yet routine for the test proposal
Some socio-cultural aspects have been related to the mens attitude toward BRCA12 mutations and genetic testing For example Pritchard 12 suggested that BRCA 12 mutations are generally associated with female gender He also pointed out that the name of the associated Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome HBOC creates a confusion since breast and ovarian cancers are considered a female matter by layperson 18 Similarly others 1314 have found that fear of stigmatization is one obstacle for the mens decision-making To date there are no studies applying a strong theoretical rationale that have systematically tested which are the psychological variables influencing mens informed decisions for genetic testing when facing BRCA-related mutations Moreover to the best of our knowledge there are no studies testing what is the better communication strategy to inform mens decision-making Therefore the present study aims to fill these gaps with an experimental study with a longitudinal component First applying principles of the Health Action Process Approach HAPA a motivational inclined theory that explains changes in behaviors will be tested what psychological determinants influence the decision to undergo a genetic test for a germline BRCA mutations The role of intolerance to the uncertainty and the health risk attitudes will be explored The HAPA model has been chosen because it is an evolution of the first stadial models of health psychology 15 and it assumes that individuals pass through qualitatively different stages of psychological elaboration when they have to adopt new health behaviors The other aim the proposed study is to test two different narrative messages in order to understand which is the most efficient in informing mens decision-making
Principles of the Health Action Process Approach HAPA According to the Health Action Process Approach 16 there are several variables involved in the implementation of new health behaviors Specifically it is possible to identify risk perception outcome expectancies and action self-efficacy as predisposing factors that have an impact on the informed decision this is considered the motivation phase in which subjects begin to form an intention In this model the intention to perform a specific health behavior is considered as a middle-level mediator between the variables considered in the motivation phase and those in the volition phase
Furthermore according to this model volition factors involve planning that is further specified as coping and action planning and coping self-efficacy Volition factors are considered as be-ing influential in the subsequent phase and they are the most proximal predictors to actual behavior decisions This second phase ie the volition phase should be subdivided in pre-action phase in which the previous mentioned coping and action planning and coping self-efficacy take place and action phase ending with a behavior
This model was tested in several health contexts 1718 in particular for smoking behavior 161920 physical activity 2122 dietary 2324 and also in cancer-related screening behavior 25 Those studies demonstrated the efficacy of the theory in explaining the initiation and maintenance of such health preventive behaviors Together with the principles of the HAPA model the present study aims to understand whether other psychological factors may explain mens decision making regarding genetic testing for BRCA12 germline mutations For this reason two attitudinal factors are examined intolerance of uncertainty and health risk attitudes
When people face with a potential threat for their health one key element affecting their subsequent decisions and behaviors is how much they feel certain or uncertain regarding the threat In our case a man who is considering the possibility to undergo a genetic test for BRCA germline mutations is facing with two different types of uncertainty The first one is the proximal uncertain-ty due to the result of the genetic test itself The second one is the distal uncertainty depending on the risk to develop a cancer if a germline mutation would be found The intention to undergo a genetic test for a germline mutation may be therefore determined by the way in which the individual manages the uncertainty due to the discovery of a possible negative result ie the presence of a mutation and to the future consequences of the germline mutation
Intolerance of Uncertainty IU is a trait characteristic of individuals who are not able to tolerate the aversive reactions triggered by a perceived lack of sufficient information or by an is-sue that can have more than one solution 26 Individuals with low tolerance for uncertainty tend to perceive the threat as a source of discomfort and to react negatively to it 27 Some studies investigated the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty IU and the attitude to undergo health monitoring in particular cancer-related screening 2829 In particular Tan and colleagues showed that intolerance of uncertainty may function as an important determinant of anxiety among men pursuing active surveillance for prostate cancer 28 One qualitative study in lung cancer screening decision-making showed that some participants sought to decrease uncertainty through lung cancer screening and if needed with additional testing others declined the screening in order to avoid the uncertainty associated with undefined results 30 Indeed intolerance of uncertainty consists of two dimensions the first one the desire for predictability is an active strategy to manage the uncertainty that is perceived as intolerable and leads to search for as much information as possible about the threat to restore a balance Rosen and colleagues 31 showed that high levels of IU were associated with an increase in health monitoring and screening other studies suggested that searching for threat-related information may be driven by the desire to reduce uncertainty 3233 The second one called uncertainty paralysis is configured as an avoidance strategy and leads to inability to act because of the uncertainty 26
Another construct related to the previous one at least in the health framework is the attitude toward health risk In order to contrast the perception of significant uncertainty people choose responses and act in a certain way and this is defined as the personal attitude toward health risk In fact people differ in their attitude towards health risks and this affects decision making regarding preventive behaviors eg screening physical activity and risky behaviors eg surgery 34 Taken together all this evidence suggest that IU and health risk attitudes may play a role when a man is facing with the decision to undergo a genetic test to detect BRCA germline mutation because there are similar mutations in the family Since men with BRCA-related cancer risks deal with probabilistic and complex information 3536 both of these attitudinal factors can have an effect on the implementation of health behaviors and therefore can influence the informed decision to undergo cascade screening for BRCA12 mutations
How to inform mens decision making for BRCA12 germline mutations genetic testing The other aim is to investigate how to inform mens decision-making Low levels of mens knowledge regarding BRCA12 germline mutations is found as one of the most important problems in this field 37 Therefore one main research achievement may be to find the right way to correctly inform them The present study aims to test two different messages tailored to mens specific needs and to understand what is the best way to inform them Although narrative approaches showed efficacy in promoting health behavioral intentions 38 and in increasing adherence to cancer screening 39 in particular its utility for improving mens BRCA cascade screen-ing remains unexplored The present research intends to explore whether narrative messages can be effective in informing mens decision-making
In particular two features are fundamental in narrative strategies context the narrative perspective and the framing The first one is a fundamental story feature and changes how information is delivered to the audience researchers identified that first-person narrative messages are able to increase self-identity and to promote the assimilation of the theme better than third-person narratives 40 Therefore the present study chooses to create narrative messages with a first-person feature Regarding the framing messages can either emphasize negative consequences losses or positive outcomes gains of a given action Prospect theory 41 posits that in general people are more likely to take risks when presented with a loss-framed message and the contrary for a gain-framed message But regarding disease prevention behaviors like smoking cessation 61 and skin cancer prevention 42 researchers have suggested an advantage albeit small of a gain frame over a loss frame 43 Therefore the present study chooses to create narrative messages oriented to a gain frame
Furthermore applying the Uncertainty Management Theory 44 a social psychological approach to uncertainty Rauscher et al 13 investigated how men with increased BRCA-related cancer risk approach the individual and familial uncertainty related to that pathogenic variant Those qualitative results showed that mens primary concern when managing BRCA-related cancer risks is the aversive consequences of the discovery of a germline mutation for their family 45 Their focus on familial uncertainty management is maybe due to the difficulties encountered in the management of their own risk due to the lack of information and management options In the end the authors suggested that genetic counseling would benefit from a family focus Also Hallowell and colleagues 46 highlighted the role of family member mother partner or children in mens decision-making about BRCA testing In particular they showed how mens decision to have genetic testing was influenced by the obligations perceived from family members primarily their children
Based on these premises this study proposes to test the effectiveness of two first-person gain-framed messages one narrating a self-referred story and the other a family-referred story The effectiveness will be measured in terms of one or both messages ability to predict the intention to undergo genetic screening
Objectives
We hypothesize the following relationships figure 1 shows the tested model
1 HP1 higher risk perception positive outcome expectations and action self-efficacy longitudinally predict the intention and the action to undergo a genetic test for BRCA germline mutations
2 HP2 higher health risk attitude and low intolerance to uncertainty have a longitudinal influence on predicted higher intention planning and action initiation
3 HP3 higher intention and coping self-efficacy longitudinally predict higher planning
4 HP4 higher planning ie action planning coping planning and coping self-efficacy longitudinally predict higher action initiation
5 Based on results by Rauscher et al 13 and Hallowell and colleagues 46 we formulated a research question RQ1 is there any difference between personal outcome expectations and family outcome expectations in their association with intention
6 HP5 family-referred narrative gain-framed message vs self-referred narrative gain-framed message will produce greater intention and action to undergo genetic testing for BRCA 12 germline mutations in at-risk men
Method Design The research will involve three phases with results from each phase informing the next phase see Figure 2 In the first phase a literature review will be performed to identify other psychological variables influencing individuals adherence to evidence based guidelines on BRCA12 germline genetic testing Subsequently a pilot survey will be created in order to test its feasibility and un-derstandability for participants
The third and final phase entails a RCT with participants receiving one of the two conditions ie self-referred narrative framed message family-referred narrative framed message and it tests the main hypotheses and research question of the study Participants will answer to several questions before and after the message exposure
Participants and study setting Participants are 264 males relatives of women with BRCA1 andor BRCA2 germline mutations who are patients of the Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics at the European Institute of Oncology IEO in Milan The IEO is a specialized Hospital and an internationally recognized Cancer Center located in Italy working on research prevention diagnosis and treatment of cancer
Sample size and power calculation The sample size is determined through an a priori power analysis using GPower 40 47 Among the imputed parameters it was chosen to include partial η2 05 alpha lower than 05 power d 1-B 70 Considering that Luszczynska et al 48 found a η2 01 η2 05 is a prudential choice Two groups corresponding to the two experimental conditions of the study and 7 covariates were included The final estimated number of participants is 264 132 in each group It should be noted that changing the number of covariates does not change the total number of participants
Recruitment According to the registry of the Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics IEO all women with BRCA1 andor BRCA2 germline mutations with at least a male relative will be reached by a phone call andor an email During the first contact a member of the research team informs the female patients about the research purposes and the procedure The researcher will then ask the women to share the information with their male relatives and to invite him them to participate in the research All the information about the research including an invitation letter an information sheet and the consent form will be also sent by email to the women If those relatives want to be contacted to participate in the study a researcher calls them and shares with them the information sheet the informed consent and the link to the online survey Participants will sign the informed consent before starting to fill the survey and data collection will be done through an online survey via the use of an identifier In order to promote participant retention and complete follow-up participants will be prompted to respond calling them by phone or contacting them by email
Randomization Participants who meet the study inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to receive one of the two conditions Randomization will occur during T1 immediately after the data collection of psychological measures The participants will not be informed of the condition to which they have been allocated until the message itself will be shown
Time 1 assessment All participants will complete the T1 assessment via an online survey which will be available for a two-week period The T1 measures will include demographic health status risk perception health risk aversion and intolerance of uncertainty After this evaluation participants will be ran-domized and exposed to one message A manipulation check the evaluation of the perceived qual-ity of the information presented on the messages positive outcome expectations action self-efficacy benefit for genetic test will be then collected
Intervention Time 2 assessment Two weeks later via an online survey participants reply to questions on the intention to undergo germline genetic testing coping self-efficacy action planning and coping planning
Time 3 assessment Starting from the end of T2 until 3 months later data on action initiation will be collected ie genet-ic test for BRCA12 gene germline mutations
Measures T1 measures Before the randomization all participants answer several questions as follows
Demographic Self-reported age education occupation degree of relationship with the woman with BRCA12 genes germline mutation household composition
Health Status Self-reported general health and existing diagnosis for the chronic disease will be investigated with a single item each 49 Response options for general health conditions will be on a 5-point Likert scale The response options for the item on the existing chronic disease will be binary coded no - yes specify
Risk perception Relative risk perception regarding the possibility to develop breast prostatic and pancreatic cancer will be investigated with one item each 5051 Response options are on a 7-point Likert scale
Health Risk aversion The six items of the Health Risk Attitude 52 will be administered to assess how a person would resolve risky health decisions Response options are on a 7-point Likert scale
Intolerance of Uncertainty The items of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 53 will be applied to measure two dimensions of the intolerance of ambiguity which are the desire of predictability and uncertainty paralysis Response options are on a 5-point Likert scale
T2 measures After the message exposure participants reply to several questions as follows
Manipulation check Two items created ad hoc evaluate whether participants have read and understood the message content Multiple-choice answers are used with one correct answer and two incorrect answers as distractors Participants who fail to answer those questions will be excluded from the analyses
Perceived Quality of the Message Three items evaluate whether the message is credible convincing and persuasive Response options are on a 7-point Likert scale
Positive Outcome Expectation Eight items will be created ad hoc for this research evaluating positive outcome expectations regarding the participant himself 4 items and his family members 4 items The response option will be on a 5-point Likert scale
Action Self-Efficacy According to Schwarzer Luszczynskas 16 indications self-efficacy will be assessed through three items as the capability of keeping up with the behavior by implementing coping strategies Response option will be on a 5-point Likert scale
Benefit for Genetic Test A 5-digit semantic differential will be applied to measure the perceived benefit for genetic tests Examples of the proposed adjectives are important relevant useful benefit
Intention to undergo genetic testing Coping Self-efficacy Three items created ad hoc for the present research evaluate whether the individual feels to be capable of tackling the possible obstacles and difficulties that could make it difficult to undergo genetic screening Response options are on a 5-point Likert scale
Action planning Three items developed ad hoc for the present research will ask if the participant has planned when how and where to undergo the genetic test for BRCA12 mutations The response option will be on a 4-point Likert scale
Coping Planning Four items developed ad hoc for the present research will ask how much the participant thinks to encounter in planning the action The response option will be on a 5-point Likert scale
T3 measures Action Information on the action initiation ie a genetic test for BRCA12 germline mutations will be collected when the participant takes the appointment for the genetic test and receives the test
References
1 Corso G Montagna G Figueiredo J Vecchia C La Romario UF Fernandes MS et al Heredi-tary gastric and breast cancer syndromes related to CDH1 germline mutation A multidisciplinary clinical review Cancers Basel MDPI AG 2020 p 1-25
2 Corso G Bonanni B Veronesi P Galimberti V Mutual exclusion of CDH1 and BRCA germline mutations in the pathway of hereditary breast cancer Arch Gynecol Obstet Springer Verlag 2018 p 1067-8
3 Corso G Feroce I Intra M Toesca A Magnoni F Sargenti M et al BRCA12 germline mis-sense mutations A systematic review Eur J Cancer Prev Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2018 p 279-86
4 Nyberg T Frost D Barrowdale D Evans DG Bancroft E Adlard J et al Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers A Prospective Cohort Study Eur Urol Elsevier BV 20207724-35
5 Kuchenbaecker KB Hopper JL Barnes DR Phillips KA Mooij TM Roos-Blom MJ et al Risks of breast ovarian and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers JAMA - J Am Med Assoc American Medical Association 20173172402-16
6 Petrucelli N Daly MB Pal T BRCA1- and BRCA2-Associated Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer GeneReviews University of Washington Seattle 1993
7 Silvestri V Leslie G Barnes DR Agnarsson BA Aittomäki K Alducci E et al Characteriza-tion of the Cancer Spectrum in Men with Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants Re-sults from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA12 CIMBA JAMA Oncol American Medical Association 20206
8 Oh M Alkhushaym N Fallatah S Althagafi A Aljadeed R Alsowaida Y et al The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk frequency and mortality A meta-analysis Prostate John Wiley and Sons Inc 201979880-95
9 da Silva TL Male breast cancer Medical and psychological management in comparison to fe-male breast cancer A review Cancer Treat Commun Elsevier Ltd 2016 p 23-34
10 Marabelli M Calvello M Bonanni B Test more men for BRCA genes Nature 2019573346
11 Daly MB Pilarski R Yurgelun MB Berry MP Buys SS Dickson P et al Geneticfamilial high-risk assessment Breast ovarian and pancreatic version 12020 featured updates to the NCCN guidelines JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw Harborside Press 202018380-91
12 Pritchard CC New name for breast-cancer syndrome could help to save lives Nature Nature Research 2019 p 27-9
13 Rauscher EA Dean M Campbell-Salome G Barbour JB How do we rally around the one who was positive Familial uncertainty management in the context of men managing BRCA-related cancer risks Soc Sci Med Elsevier Ltd 2019242112592
14 Strømsvik N Råheim M Yen N Gjengedal E Men in the womens world of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer-a systematic review Fam Cancer Springer 20098221-9
15 Prochaska JO Di Clemente CC Transtheoretical therapy Toward a more integrative model of change Psychotherapy American Psychological Association APA 198219276-88
16 Schwarzer R Luszczynska A The Health Action Process Approach Eur Psychol 200813141-51
17 Zhang CQ Zhang R Schwarzer R Hagger MS A Meta-Analysis of the Health Action Process Approach Heal Psychol 2019
18 Mohammadi Zeidi I morshedi H shokohi abdolah Application of the Health Action Process Approach HAPA Model to Determine Factors Affecting Physical Activity in Hypertensive Pa-tients J Jiroft Univ Med Sci Journal of Jiroft University of Medical Sciences 20207349-60
19 Radtke T Scholz U Keller R Hornung R Smoking is ok as long as I eat healthily Compensa-tory Health Beliefs and their role for intentions and smoking within the Health Action Process Ap-proach Psychol Heal 20122791-107
20 Scholz U Nagy G Göhner W Luszczynska A Kliegel M Changes in self-regulatory cogni-tions as predictors of changes in smoking and nutrition behaviour Psychol Heal 200924545-61
21 Barg CJ Latimer AE Pomery EA Rivers SE Rench TA Prapavessis H et al Examining pre-dictors of physical activity among inactive middle-aged women An application of the health ac-tion process approach Psychol Heal Routledge 201227829-45
22 Parschau L Barz M Richert J Knoll N Lippke S Schwarzer R Physical activity among adults with obesity Testing the health action process approach Rehabil Psychol American Psychologi-cal Association Inc 20145942-9
23 Steca P Pancani L Greco A DAddario M Magrin ME Miglioretti M et al Changes in Die-tary Behavior among Coronary and Hypertensive Patients A Longitudinal Investigation Using the Health Action Process Approach Appl Psychol Heal Well-Being Wiley-Blackwell 20157316-39
24 Chiu C-Y Lynch RT Chan F Rose L The Health Action Process Approach as a Motivational Model of Dietary Self-Management for People With Multiple Sclerosis Rehabil Couns Bull SAGE PublicationsSage CA Los Angeles CA 20125648-61
25 Daniel AO Omorogieva Enoma I Omobude-Idiado SN Application of Protection Motivation Theory PMT and Health Action Process Approach HAPA in promoting womens adaptive en-gagement towards breast self examination Acad Res Int 20145291
26 Carleton RN Fear of the unknown One fear to rule them all J Anxiety Disord Elsevier Ltd 2016 p 5-21
27 Buhr K Dugas MJ Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry J Anxiety Disord J Anxiety Disord 200620222-36
28 Tan H-J Marks LS Hoyt MA Kwan L Filson CP Macairan M et al The Relationship be-tween Intolerance of Uncertainty and Anxiety in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer J Urol Elsevier Inc 20161951724-30
29 Taber JM Klein WMP Ferrer RA Han PKJ Lewis KL Biesecker LG et al Perceived ambi-guity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results J Behav Med Springer New York LLC 201538715-26
30 Schapira MM Aggarwal C Akers S Aysola J Imbert D Langer C et al How patients view lung cancer screening The role of uncertainty in medical decision making Ann Am Thorac Soc American Thoracic Society 2016131969-76
31 Rosen NO Knäuper B Sammut J Do individual differences in intolerance of uncertainty af-fect health monitoring Psychol Heal Routledge 200722413-30
32 Hock M Krohne HW Kaiser J Coping Dispositions and the Processing of Ambiguous Stimuli J Pers Soc Psychol American Psychological Association Inc 1996701052-66
33 Krohne HW Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research Atten Avoid Strateg coping with aversiveness 1993
34 Van Osch SMC Stiggelbout AM The development of the Health-Risk Attitude Scale 2007
35 Oliveri S Pravettoni G Capturing how individuals perceive genetic risk information a phe-nomenological perspective J Risk Res Routledge 201821259-67
36 Oliveri S Scotto L Ongaro G Triberti S Guiddi P Pravettoni G You do not get cancer by chance Communicating the role of environmental causes in cancer diseases and the risk of a guilt rhetoric Psychooncology John Wiley and Sons Ltd 2019282422-4
37 Skop M Lorentz J Jassi M Vesprini D Einstein G Guys Dont Have Breasts The Lived Experience of Men Who Have BRCA Gene Mutations and Are at Risk for Male Breast Cancer Am J Mens Health SAGE Publications Inc 201812961-72
38 Braddock K Dillard JP Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on be-liefs attitudes intentions and behaviors Commun Monogr Routledge 201683446-67
39 Jensen JD King AJ Carcioppolo N Krakow M Samadder NJ Morgan S Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50-75 A ran-domized controlled trial Soc Sci Med 201410431-40
40 van Peer W Maat HP Narrative perspective and the interpretation of characters motives Lang Lit Int J Stylist SAGE Publications Ltd 200110229-41
41 Kahneman D Tversky A Prospect Theory An Analysis of Decision Under Risk 2013 p 99-127
42 OKeefe DJ Jensen JD The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors A meta-analytic review J Health Commun Taylor Francis Group 2007 p 623-44
43 Kim HK Lee TK Conditional Effects of Gain-Loss-Framed Narratives among Current Smok-ers at Different Stages of Change J Health Commun Taylor and Francis Inc 201722990-8
44 Brashers DE Communication and Uncertainty Management J Commun Oxford University Press OUP 200151477-97
45 Hesse-Biber S An C Within-Gender Differences in Medical Decision Making Among Male Carriers of the BRCA Genetic Mutation for Hereditary Breast Cancer Am J Mens Health SAGE Publications Inc 2017111444-59
46 Hallowell N Ardern-Jones A Eeles R Foster C Lucassen A Moynihan C et al Mens Deci-sion-Making About Predictive BRCA12 Testing The Role of Family J Genet Couns John Wiley Sons Ltd 200514207-17
47 Faul F Erdfelder E Lang AG Buchner A GPower 3 A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social behavioral and biomedical sciences Behav Res Methods Psychonomic Society Inc 2007 p 175-91
48 Luszczynska A Schwarzer R Lippke S Mazurkiewicz M Self-efficacy as a moderator of the planning-behaviour relationship in interventions designed to promote physical activity Psychol Heal Psychol Health 201126151-66
49 Shim M Kelly B Hornik R Cancer information scanning and seeking behavior is associated with knowledge lifestyle choices and screening J Health Commun J Health Commun 200611157-72
50 Renner B Hindsight bias after receiving self-relevant health risk information A motivational perspective Memory Taylor Francis Group 200311455-72
51 Renner B Biased Reasoning Adaptive Responses to Health Risk Feedback Personal Soc Psy-chol Bull Pers Soc Psychol Bull 200430384-96
52 Dieteren CM Brouwer WBF Van Exel J How do combinations of unhealthy behaviors relate to attitudinal factors and subjective health among the adult population in the Netherlands BMC Public Health BioMed Central Ltd 202020441
53 Bottesi G Ghisi M Novara C Bertocchi J e Ilaria MB Dominicis D et al Intolerance of un-certainty scale IUS-27 e IUS-12 Due studi preliminari Psicoter Cogn e Comport 201521345-65
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None