ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study was to systematically compare the psychological and screening profiles of first-degree relatives (FDRs) of prostate cancer patients versus non-FDRs. FDRs (n = 56) and non-FDRs (n = 100), recruited through prostate cancer index cases and newspaper advertisements, completed questionnaires via mail. FDRs reported feeling at greater risk for prostate cancer, estimated that they were at higher average lifetime risk for the disease, agreed more strongly that prostate cancer is inherited, and that less can be done to prevent the development of the disease. Increased age, but not FDR status, was associated with more frequent screening behavior. Taken together, the results indicate that FDRs are characterized by greater perceived vulnerability to prostate cancer and lower expectations about disease prevention. Yet, they are no more likely to be screened than non-FDRs. These findings underscore the importance of developing, and evaluating, evidence-based health communication protocols to promote screening adherence among at-risk patients.
Subject(s)
Depressive Disorder, Major/diagnosis , Depressive Disorder, Major/etiology , Family/psychology , Mass Screening , Prostatic Neoplasms/psychology , Adult , Attitude to Health , Depressive Disorder, Major/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
This article has traced the development of the diagnostic nomenclature for the chronic affective disorders during the past four decades. Much has been accomplished. In fact, our current differential diagnostic capabilities have surpassed our knowledge of how to treat the chronic depressions. It is hoped that in the next decade there will be notable increases in the treatment efficacy literature of the chronic mild depressions. Next, we suggest that practitioners assist academic investigators in determining the best way to treat the chronic depressions. To realize this goal, clinicians must begin to view themselves as part-time researchers. Several technological procedures have been described to facilitate this undertaking. We suggest that the assumption of such a research practitioner role will, in the long run, improve the quality of patient care.
