Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Oct;19(10):1102-11.
doi: 10.1002/pon.1667.

Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families

Julie N Harris  1 , Jennifer Hay, Alan Kuniyuki, Maryam M Asgari, Nancy Press, Deborah J Bowen
Affiliations

Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families

Julie N Harris et al. Psychooncology. 2010 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: The family provides an important communication nexus for information and support exchange about family cancer history, and adoption of family-wide cancer risk reduction strategies. The goals of this study were to (1) use the family systems theory to identify characteristics of this sample of families at increased risk of developing melanoma and (2) to relate familial characteristics to the frequency and style of familial risk communication.

Methods: Participants were first-degree relatives (n=313) of melanoma patients, recruited into a family web-based intervention study. We used multivariable logistic regression models to analyze the association between family functioning and family communication.

Results: Most participants were female (60%), with an average age of 51 years. Fifty percent of participants reported that they spoke to their relatives about melanoma risk and people were more likely to speak to their female family members. Familial adaptation, cohesion, coping, and health beliefs were strongly associated with an open style of risk communication within families. None were associated with a blocked style of risk communication. Only cohesion and adaptation were associated with the amount of risk communication that occurred within families.

Conclusions: Overall, individuals who came from families that were more highly cohesive, adaptable, and shared strong beliefs about melanoma risk were more likely to communicate openly about melanoma. The fact that this association was not consistent across blocked communication and communication frequency highlights the multifaceted nature of this process. Future research should focus on the interplay between different facets of communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conceptual model for analyzing the relationship between family functioning and family communication about melanoma risk.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. DudokdeWit A, Tibben A, Frets P, Meijers-Heijboer E, Devilee P, Klijn J, Oosterwijk J, Niermeijer M. BRCA1 in the family: A case description of the psychological implications. American Journal of Human Genetics. 1997;61(1):120–128. - PubMed
    1. Emery J, Kumar S, Smith H. Patient understanding of genetic principles and their expectations of genetic services within the NHS: A qualitative study. Community Genetics. 1998;1:78–83. - PubMed
    1. Koehly LM, Peterson SK, Watts BG, Kempf KK, Vernon SW, Gritz ER. A social network analysis of communication about hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer genetic testing and family functioning. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12(4):304–13. - PubMed
    1. Mellon S, Berry-Bobovski L, Gold R, Levin N, Tainsky M. Communication and Decision-Making about seeking inherited cancer risk information: findings from female survivor-relative focus groups. Psycho-oncology. 2006;15:193–208. - PubMed
    1. DiLorenzo T, Schnur J, Montgomery G, Erblich J, Winkel G, Bovbjerg D. A model of disease-specific worry in heritable disease: the influence of family history, perceived risk, and worry about other illnesses. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2006;29(1):37–49. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms