What causes breast cancer? A systematic review of causal attributions among breast cancer survivors and how these compare to expert endorsed risks.

This item is under embargo for a period of 12 months from the date of publication, in accordance with the publisher's policy. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10552-014-0377-3.Purpose. The aim of this paper was to review published research that analyzed causal attributions for breast cancer among women previously diagnosed with breast cancer. These attributions were compared with risk factors identified by published scientific evidence in order to determine the level of agreement between cancer survivors’ attributions and expert opinion. Methods. A comprehensive search for articles, published between 1982 and 2012, reporting studies on causal attributions for breast cancer among patients and survivors was undertaken. Of 5,135 potentially relevant articles, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. Two additional articles were sourced from reference lists of included studies. Results. Results indicated a consistent belief among survivors that their own breast cancer could be attributed to family history, environmental factors, stress, fate or chance. Lifestyle factors were less frequently identified, despite expert health information highlighting the importance of these factors in controlling and modifying cancer risk. This review demonstrated that misperceptions about the contribution of modifiable lifestyle factors to the risk of breast cancer have remained largely unchanged over the past 30 years. Conclusions. The findings of this review indicate that beliefs about the causes of breast cancer among affected women are not always consistent with the judgment of experts. Breast cancer survivors did not regularly identify causal factors supported by expert consensus such as age, physical inactivity, breast density, alcohol consumption and reproductive history. Further research examining psychological predictors of attributions and the impact of cancer prevention messages on adjustment and well-being of cancer survivors is warranted

Can a lifestyle intervention be offered through NHS breast cancer screening?:Challenges and opportunities identified in a qualitative study of women attending screening

Background: Around one third of breast cancers in post-menopausal women could be prevented by decreasing body fatness and alcohol intake and increasing physical activity. This study aimed to explore views and attitudes on lifestyle intervention approaches in order to inform the proposed content of a lifestyle intervention programme amongst women attending breast cancer screening. Methods: Women attending breast cancer screening clinics in Dundee and Glasgow, were invited to participate in focus group discussions (FGD) by clinic staff. The groups were convened out with the clinic setting and moderated by an experienced researcher who attained brief details on socio-demographic background and audio-recorded the discussions. Data analysis was guided by the framework approach. The main topics of enquiry were: Understanding of risk of breast cancer and its prevention, views on engaging with a lifestyle intervention programme offered through breast cancer screening and programme design and content. Results: Thirty one women attended 5 focus groups. Participant ages ranged from 51 to 78 years and 38 % lived in the two most deprived quintiles of residential areas. Women were generally positive about being offered a programme at breast cancer screening but sceptical about lifestyle associated risk, citing genetics, bad luck and knowing women with breast cancer who led healthy lifestyles as reasons to query the importance of lifestyle. Engagement via clinic staff and delivery of the programme by lifestyle coaches out with the screening setting was viewed favourably. The importance of body weight, physical activity and alcohol consumption with disease was widely known although most were surprised at the association with breast cancer. They were particularly surprised about the role of alcohol and resistant to thinking about themselves having a problem. They expressed frustration that lifestyle guidance was often conflicting and divergent over time. The concept of focussing on small lifestyle changes, which were personalised, supported socially and appropriate to age and ability were welcomed. Conclusions: Offering access to a lifestyle programme through breast screening appears acceptable. Explaining the relevance of the target behaviours for breast cancer health, endorsing and utilising consistent messages and identifying personalised, mutually agreed, behaviour change goals provides a framework for programme development