J Korean Oncol Nurs.  2011 Nov;11(3):200-209.

Communication Patterns in Korean Families during BRCA Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer

• Anderson G
• Jun M
• Choi KS

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this micro-ethnography is to examine whether science and societal changes impact family communication patterns among a convenience sample of 16 Korean women.
METHODS
The authors observed family communication in the context of a new breast cancer genetic screening and diagnostic testing program to detect BRCA gene mutations in Korean women at highest risk.
RESULTS
Analysis of in-depth interviews and field notes taken during participant observation illustrated that communication patterns in families vary according to a woman's position in the family. If a grandmother tests positive for a gene mutation, her daughters make decisions on her behalf; they open and maintain the communication channel among family members. If a housewife is diagnosed with cancer and a genetic mutation, she immediately consults her husband and her sisters. The husband creates an open communication channel between his wife, his parents and his siblings. As a result, a woman's cancer is a concern for the whole family not merely a woman's secret or crisis.
CONCLUSION
Cultural differences are important to consider when designing new genetic service programs in different countries.

Keyword

Breast Neoplasms; Genes; Genetic Counseling; Health Communication; Cultural Anthropology

MeSH Terms

Anthropology, Cultural
Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
Female
Genes, vif
Genetic Counseling
Genetic Services
Genetic Testing
Health Communication
Humans
Nuclear Family
Parents
Siblings
Spouses

Reference

1. Rothemund Y, Paepke S, Flor H. Perception of risk, anxiety, and health behaviors in women at high risk for breast cancer. Int J Behav Med. 2001. 8:230–239.

2. Anderson G, Jun M, Choi K. Breast cancer screening for Korean women must consider traditional risks as well as two genetic risk factors: genetic polymorphisms and inheritable gene mutations. Cancer Nurs. 2007. 30:213–222.

3. Han SA, Park SK, Ahn SH, Lee MH, Noh DY, Kim LS, et al. Korean Breast Cancer Study Group. The Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer (KOHBRA) study: protocols and interim report. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2011. 23:434–441.

4. Lee EH, Park SK, Park B, Kim SW, Lee MH, Ahn SH, et al. KOHBRA Research Group. Korean Breast Cancer Society. Effect of BRCA1/2 mutation on short-term and long-term breast cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010. 122:11–25.

5. Ahn SH, Son BH, Yoon KS, Noh DY, Han WS, Kim SW, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in Korean breast cancer patients at high-risk of carrying mutations. Cancer Lett. 2007. 245:90–95.

6. Crotser CB, Dickerson SS. Women receiving news of a family BRCA1/2 mutation:messages of fear and empowerment. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2010. 42:367–378.

7. Vos J, Jansen AM, Menko F, van Asperen CJ, Stiggelbout AM, Tibben A. Family communication matters: the impact of telling relatives about unclassified variants and uninformative DNA-test results. Genet Med. 2011. 13:333–341.

8. Welkenhuysen M, Evers-Kiebooms G, d'Ydewalle G. The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: Framing verbal versus numerical information. Patient Educ Couns. 2001. 43:179–187.

9. Jun MH, Choi KS, Ahn SH, Gu BK. Experiences of high-risk breast cancer women undertaking genetic test. J Korean Oncol Nurs. 2005. 5:146–169.

10. Ropper J, Shapira J. Ethnography in nursing research. 2000. London: Sage Publication.

11. Agar M. The professional stranger. 1980. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

12. Park TH. The influences of familism on interpersonal trust in South Korea. Korean Public Adm Rev. 2004. 9:121–135.

13. DudokdeWit AC, Tibben A, Frets PG, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Devilee P, Klikin JGM, et al. BRCA1 in the family: a case description of the psychological implications. Am J Med Genet. 1997. 71:63–71.

14. Marteau T, Richards M. The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics. 1996. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ..

15. Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogacrts A, Decruyenacre M, Denayer L, Legius E. Communication with close and distant relatives in the context of genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients. Am J Med Genet. 2003. 116A:11–19.

16. Kenen R, Arden-Jones A, Eeles R. Health women form suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: The significant others in their lives. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2004. 13:169–179.

17. Gu BK. Comparison of Knowledge According to the Risk of Hereditary Breast Cancer [dissertation]. 2007. Seoul: Ehwa Univ..

18. Friesen P, Pepler C, Hunter P. Interactive family learning following a cancer diagnosis. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002. 29:981–987.

19. Powe BD, Finnie R. Cancer fatalism. Cancer Nurs. 2003. 26:454–465.

20. Chapman E. Ethical dilemmas in testing for late-onset conditions: Reactions to testing and perceived impact on other family members. J Genet Couns. 2002. 11:351–367.

21. Doukas DJ, Berg JW. The family covenant and genetic testing. Am J Bioeth. 2001. 1:3–10.

22. Loewy R. Families, communities, and making medical decisions. J Clin Ethics. 1991. 2:150–153.

23. Douglas HA, Hamilton RJ, Grubs RE. The effect of BRCA gene testing on family relationships: a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews. J Genet Couns. 2009. 18:418–435.

24. Ersig AL, Hadley DW, Koehly LM. Understanding patterns of health communication in families at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: examining the effect of conclusive versus indeterminate genetic test results. Health Commun. 2011. 26:587–594.

25. Hall MA, Rich SS. Patients' fear of genetic discrimination by health insurance: The impact of legal protections. Genet Med. 2000. 2:214–221.

26. Hall M, Rich S. Laws restricting health insurers' use of genetic information: Impact on genetic discrimination. Am J Med Genet. 2000. 66:293–307.

27. Hurst M, Lieber C, Lewis LJ, Grob R. Family stories: narrative genetics and conceptions of heritability in pregnant women. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2011. 56:26–32.

28. Boylan M. Autonomy: the delicate balance: genetic testing. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2002. 11:246–256.