Public awareness of the BRCA genes, which can be linked to a woman’s risk of breast and ovarian cancer, rose after a high-profile article by Angelina Jolie, according to a new analysis.
But increased testing rates failed to increase identification of women at risk from the genes, researchers found.
The experience shows how celebrities can contribute to public health, the researchers say in an article in the Christmas issue of The BMJ.
The actress explained in a New York Times editorial on 14 May 2013 that she was at a raised risk of breast and ovarian cancer, so had undergone a double mastectomy.
This led to a short-term jump in the rate of women requesting gene testing for the more dangerous forms of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
Dr Sunita Desai of Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA, and colleagues looked at the health insurance details of over nine million US women aged 18 to 64 years. Analysis showed that BRCA test rates "increased immediately and sharply" following the editorial, from 0.71 tests per 100,000 women to 1.13 tests in the 15 business days afterwards.
But there was no overall rise in mastectomy rates, which remained at an average of seven per 100,000 women in the months before and after the editorial.
"Our findings illustrate that well delivered announcements by high profile figures may be a low cost and effective means to influencing healthcare decision making, particularly in this social media age," they write.
"However, both stable overall mastectomy rates and decreased mastectomy rates among women who had a BRCA test after the editorial suggest that additional BRCA testing induced by the editorial probably did not identify new BRCA mutations requiring preventive mastectomy."
They add: "Celebrity announcements can influence use of healthcare services, but they may not effectively target the subpopulation at greatest risk for the underlying condition."
Desai, S. and Jena, A. B. Do celebrity endorsements matter? Observational study of BRCA gene testing and mastectomy rates after Angelina Jolie’s New York Times editorial. BMJ 15 December 2016; doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6357 [abstract]
Photo credit: DFree / Shutterstock.com
Leave a Reply