“That Word, Cancer”: Breast Care Behavior of Hispanic Women in New Mexico—Background and Literature Review

Estimates of the worldwide incidence, mortality and prevalence of 26 cancers in the year 2002 are now available in the GLOBOCAN series of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The results are presented here in summary form, including the geographic variation between 20 large "areas" of the world. Overall, there were 10.9 million new cases, 6.7 million deaths, and 24.6 million persons alive with cancer (within three years of diagnosis). The most commonly diagnosed cancers are lung (1.35 million), breast (1.15 million), and colorectal (1 million); the most common causes of cancer death are lung cancer (1.18 million deaths), stomach cancer (700,000 deaths), and liver cancer (598,000 deaths). The most prevalent cancer in the world is breast cancer (4.4 million survivors up to 5 years following diagnosis). There are striking variations in the risk of different cancers by geographic area. Most of the international variation is due to exposure to known or suspected risk factors related to lifestyle or environment, and provides a clear challenge to prevention.

The lower breast cancer incidence in minority women and the higher breast cancer mortality in African American women than in white women are largely unexplained. The influence of breast cancer risk factors on these differences has received little attention. Racial/ethnic differences in breast cancer incidence and outcome were examined in 156,570 postmenopausal women participating in the Women's Health Initiative. Detailed information on breast cancer risk factors including mammography was collected, and participants were followed prospectively for breast cancer incidence, pathological breast cancer characteristics, and breast cancer mortality. Comparisons of breast cancer incidence and mortality across racial/ethnic groups were estimated as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from Cox proportional hazard models. Tumor characteristics were compared as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals in logistic regression models. After median follow-up of 6.3 years, 3938 breast cancers were diagnosed. Age-adjusted incidences for all minority groups (i.e., African American, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander) were lower than for white women, but adjustment for breast cancer risk factors accounted for the differences for all but African Americans (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.92) corresponding to 29 cases and 44 cases per 10,000 person years for African American and white women, respectively. Breast cancers in African American women had unfavorable characteristics; 32% of those in African Americans but only 10% in whites were both high grade and estrogen receptor negative (adjusted OR = 4.70, 95% CI = 3.12 to 7.09). Moreover, after adjustment for prognostic factors, African American women had higher mortality after breast cancer than white women (HR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.05 to 3.05) corresponding to nine and six deaths per 10 000 person-years from diagnosis in African American and white women, respectively. Differences in breast cancer incidence rates between most racial/ethnic groups were largely explained by risk factor distribution except in African Americans. However, breast cancers in African American women more commonly had characteristics of poor prognosis, which may contribute to their increased mortality after diagnosis.

Focus group method is becoming increasingly popular among qualitative researchers. After introducing focus group method and briefly overviewing its use in health research, this article shows that the distinctive (and under-used) feature of focus group method is its generation of interactive data. Illustrating my argument with examples from health- related focus group research (including my own data on breast cancer), I argue that this feature makes focus groups an ideal method for gaining access to research participants' own meanings. Interactive data result in enhanced disclosure, improved access to participants' own language and concepts, better understanding of participants' own agendas, the production of more elaborated accounts, and the opportunity to observe the co-construction of meaning in action. Focus groups are, then, an ideal method for exploring people's own meanings and understandings of health and illness.