The Angelina effect: immediate reach, grasp, and impact of going public

Journal name:
Genetics in Medicine
(2013)
Volume:
16,
Pages:
516–521
DOI:
doi:10.1038/gim.2013.181
Received
Accepted
Published online

Abstract

Background:

In May 2013, Angelina Jolie revealed in a New York Times opinion piece that she had undergone a preventive double mastectomy because she had a family history of cancer and carried a rare mutation of the BRCA1 gene. Media coverage has been extensive, but it is not obvious what messages the public took from this personal health story.

Methods:

We conducted a survey with a representative national online panel of 2,572 adults. Participants described their awareness and identified information sources for the Angelina Jolie news story. They also reported their understanding, reactions, perceptions, and subsequent activities related to the story. We asked questions pertaining to personal and societal breast cancer risk and hypothetical questions regarding preventive surgery if the respondent or a family member were in the same position as Ms Jolie. Demographic information was collected, as was family risk for breast and ovarian cancer, and a gauge of numeracy.

Results:

While three of four Americans were aware of Angelina Jolie’s double mastectomy, fewer than 10% of respondents had the information necessary to accurately interpret Ms Jolie’s risk of developing cancer relative to a woman unaffected by the BRCA gene mutation. Awareness of the Angelina Jolie story was not associated with improved understanding.

Conclusion:

While celebrities can bring heightened awareness to health issues, there is a need for these messages to be accompanied by more purposeful communication efforts to assist the public in understanding and using the complex diagnostic and treatment information that these stories convey.

Genet Med 16 7, 516–521.

Keywords:

breast cancer; celebrity health narratives; BRAC1/2; health communication

References

  1. Cram P, Fendrick AM, Inadomi J, Cowen ME, Carpenter D, Vijan S. The impact of a celebrity promotional campaign on the use of colon cancer screening: the Katie Couric effect. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:16011605.
  2. Beck CS, Aubuchon SM, McKenna TP, Ruhl S, Simmons N. Blurring personal health and public priorities: an analysis of celebrity health narratives in the public sphere. Health Commun 2013.
  3. Chapman S, McLeod K, Wakefield M, Holding S. Impact of news of celebrity illness on breast cancer screening: Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer diagnosis. Med J Aust 2005;183:247250.
  4. Larson RJ, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Celebrity endorsements of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:693695.
  5. Kelaher M, Cawson J, Miller J, et al. Use of breast cancer screening and treatment services by Australian women aged 25–44 years following Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer diagnosis. Int J Epid 2008;37:13261332.
  6. Nattinger AB, Hoffmann RG, Howell-Pelz A, Goodwin JS. Effect of Nancy Reagan’s mastectomy on choice of surgery for breast cancer by US women. JAMA 1998;279:762766.
  7. Brown WJ, Basil MD. Media celebrities and public health: responses to ‘Magic’ Johnson’s HIV disclosure and its impact on AIDS risk and high-risk behaviors. Health Commun 1995;7:345370.
  8. Kreps GJ. The impact of communication on cancer risk, incidence, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Health Commun 2003;15:161169.
  9. Niederdeppe J. Beyond knowledge gaps: examining sociodemographic differences in response to cancer news. Human Communication Research. 2008;34:423447.
  10. Dentzer S. Communicating medical news – pitfalls of health care journalism. NEJM 2009;360:13.
  11. Greenslade R. Angelina Jolie illustrates the virtues of celebrity power. The Guardian 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/may/15/angelinajolie-breast-cancer. Accessed 10 July 2013.
  12. HINTS 2005. HINTS Instrument. http://hints.cancer.gov/docs/HINTS_2005_Instrument-English.pdf. Accessed 14 September 2013.
  13. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:18791886.
  14. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994;73:643651.
  15. Berliner JL, Fay AM, Cummings SA, Burnett B, Tillmanns T. NSGC practice guideline: risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 2013;22:155163.
  16. Lipkus IM, Kuchibhatla M, McBride CM, et al. Relationships among breast cancer perceived absolute risk, comparative risk, and worries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:973975.
  17. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:966972.
  18. Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Lubinski J, et al.; Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 2008;122:20172022.
  19. Den Heijer M, van Asperen CJ, Harris H, et al. International variation in physicians’ attitudes towards prophylactic mastectomy - comparison between France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Eur J Cancer. 2013 doi:pii: S0959-8049(13)00359-6. 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.04.025 (Epub ahead of print).
  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: evaluating direct-to-consumer marketing--Atlanta, Denver, Raleigh-Durham, and Seattle, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004;53:603606.
  21. Bowen DJ, Harris J, Jorgensen CM, Myers MF, Kuniyuki A. Socioeconomic influences on the effects of a genetic testing direct-to-consumer marketing campaign. Public Health Genomics 2010;13:131142.
  22. Larsson A, Oxman AD, Carling C, Herrin J. Medical messages in the media–barriers and solutions to improving medical journalism. Health Expect 2003;6:323331.
  23. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006–483). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, DC, 2006.
  24. Mouchawar J, Hensley-Alford S, Laurion S, et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer advertising for hereditary breast cancer testing on genetic services at a managed care organization: a naturally-occurring experiment. Genet Med 2005;7:191197.
  25. Hall IJ, Burke W, Coughlin S, Lee NC. Population-based estimates of the prevalence of family history of cancer among women. Community Genet 2001;4:134142.
  26. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Neyman N, Altekruse SF, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2010, National Cancer Institute: Bethesda, MD. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2010/. Accessed 14 September 2013.
  27. Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 2003;72:11171130.
  28. Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, et al.; EMBRACE. Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:812822.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA

    • Dina L.G. Borzekowski
  2. Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    • Yue Guan,
    • Katherine C. Smith,
    • Lori H. Erby &
    • Debra L. Roter

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

Additional data