eISSN: 1896-9151
ISSN: 1734-1922
Archives of Medical Science
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Special issues Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
vol. 14
Systematic review/Meta-analysis

The utility of Leventhal’s model in the analysis of the psycho-behavioral implications of familial cancer – a literature review

Roxana Postolica, Magdalena Iorga, Mihaela Savin, Doina Azoicai, Violeta Enea

Arch Med Sci 2018; 14, 5: 1144–1154
Online publish date: 2016/10/19
View full text
Get citation
JabRef, Mendeley
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
We aim to highlight the utility of this model in the analysis of the psycho-behavioral implications of family cancer, presenting the scientific literature that used Leventhal’s model as the theoretical framework of approach.

Material and methods
A systematic search was performed in six databases (EBSCO, ScienceDirect, PubMed Central, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science) with empirical studies published between 2006 and 2015 in English with regard to the Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSMR) and familial/hereditary cancer. The key words used were: illness representations, common sense model, self regulatory model, familial/hereditary/genetic cancer, genetic cancer counseling. The selection of studies followed the PRISMA-P guidelines (Moher et al., 2009; Shamseer et al., 2015), which suggest a three-stage procedure.

Individuals create their own cognitive and emotional representation of the disease when their health is threatened, being influenced by the presence of a family history of cancer, causing them to adopt or not a salutogenetic behavior. Disease representations, particularly the cognitive ones, can be predictors of responses to health threats that determine different health behaviors. Age, family history of cancer, and worrying about the disease are factors associated with undergoing screening. No consensus has been reached as to which factors act as predictors of compliance with cancer screening programs.

This model can generate interventions that are conceptually clear as well as useful in regulating the individuals’ behaviors by reducing the risk of developing the disease and by managing as favorably as possible health and/or disease.


disease, Leventhal’s model, family cancer, cancer screening, illness representation

Leventhal H, Meyer D, Nerenz D. The common sense representation of illness danger. In: Rachman S (ed.). Contributions to medical psychology. Vol. 2. Pergamon, New York 1980; 7-30.
Leventhal H, Benyamini Y, Brownlee S, et al. Illness representations: theoretical foundations. In: Perceptions of health and illness. Petrie KJ, Weinman JA (eds.). Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam 1997; 19-46.
Leventhal H, Brissette I, Leventhal EA. The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. The self-regulation of health and illness behavior. Psychology Press 2003; 1: 42-65.
Hochbaum G, Rosenstock I, Kegels S. Health belief model. United States Public Health Service 1952.
Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Behav 1974; 2: 328-35.
Maiman LA, Becker MH. The Health Belief Model: origins and correlates in psychological theory. Health Educ Behav 1974; 2: 336-53.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitudes, intention, and behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Massachussets 1975.
Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 1985; 11-39.
McAndrew LM, Musumeci-Szabó TJ, Mora PA, et al. Using the common sense model to design interventions for the prevention and management of chronic illness threats: from description to process. Br J Health Psychol 2008; 13: 195-204.
Zabora J, BrintzenhofeSzoc K, Curbow B, Hooker C, Piantadosi S. The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psychooncology 2001; 10: 19-28.
Okuyama S, Jones W, Ricklefs C, Tran ZV. Psychosocial telephone interventions for patients with cancer and survivors: a systematic review. Psychooncology 2015; 24: 857-70.
Daly MB. A family-centered model for sharing genetic risk. J Law Med Ethics 2015; 43: 545-51.
Petrie KJ, Broadbent E, Meechan G. Self-regulatory interventions for improving the management of chronic illness. In: The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour. Cameron LD, Leventhal H (eds.). Routledge, London 2008; 257-77.
14. Popa-Vela O, Diaconescu L. Stiintele comportamentului uman (Human Behavioral Sciences). Ed TREI, Bucuresti 2010; 175-93.
Negură A, Matei M, Negură L. Ethical issues in communicating results for molecular tests to families with hereditary risk for cancer. Revista Română de Bioetică 2010; 8: 74-83.
Diefenbach MA, Hamrick N. Self-regulation and genetic testing. In: The self-regulation of health and illness behavior. Cameron LD, Leventhal H (eds.). Routledge, London 2008; 314-27.
Marteau TM, Weinman J. Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 1360-8.
Gooding HC, Organista K, Burack J, Biesecker BB. Genetic susceptibility testing from a stress and coping perspective. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62: 1880-90.
Leventhal H, Leventhal EA, Breland JY. Cognitive science speaks to the “common-sense” of chronic illness management. Ann Behav Med 2011; 41: 152-63.
Cameron LD, Leventhal H. The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour. Psychology Press, 2003.
Rothman AJ, Kelly KM, Hertel AW, Salovey P, Cameron LD, Leventhal H (eds). The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour. Routledge, New York, NY, USA 2003; 278-96.
Munro S, Lewin S, Swart T, Volmink J. A review of health behaviour theories: how useful are these for developing interventions to promote long-term medication adherence for TB and HIV/AIDS? BMC Public Health 2007; 7: 104.
DiMatteo MR. Social support and patient adherence to medical treatment: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol 2004; 23: 207-18.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. PRISMA-P Group Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 349: g7647.
Anagnostopoulos F, Dimitrakaki C, Fitzsimmons D, Potamianos G, Niakas D, Tountas Y. Health beliefs and illness perceptions as related to mammography uptake in randomly selected women in Greece. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2012; 19: 147-64.
Cameron LD, Reeve J. Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Psychol Health 2006; 21: 211-30.
Lifford KJ, Fraser L, Rosenthal AN, et al. Withdrawal from familial ovarian cancer screening for surgery: findings from a psychological evaluation study (PsyFOCS). Gynecol Oncol 2012; 124: 158-63.
Kaphingst KA, Lachance CR, Condit CM. Beliefs about heritability of cancer and health information seeking and preventive behaviors. J Cancer Educat 2009; 24: 351-6.
Shiloh S, Drori E, Orr-Urtreger A, Friedman E. Being ‘at-risk’ for developing cancer: cognitive representations and psychological outcomes. J Behav Med 2009; 32: 197-208.
van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ, et al. Prognostic factors for hereditary cancer distress six months after BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43: 71-7.
van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ, et al. The common sense model of self-regulation and psychological adjustment to predictive genetic testing: a prospective study. Psychooncology 2007; 16: 1121-9.
Hadley DW, Ashida S, Jenkins JF, Calzone KA, Kirsch IR, Koehly LM. Colonoscopy use following mutation detection in Lynch syndrome: exploring a role for cancer screening in adaptation. Clin Genet 2011; 79: 321-8.
Lancastle D, Brain K, Phelps C. Illness representations and distress in women undergoing screening for familial ovarian cancer. Psychol Health 2011; 26: 1659-77.
Fantini-Hauwel C, Dauvier B, Arciszewski T, Antoine P, Manouvrier S. Genetic testing for hereditary cancer: effects of alexithymia and coping strategies on variations in anxiety before and after result disclosure. Psychol Health 2011; 26: 855-73.
Patrick-Miller L, Egleston BL, Daly M, et al. Implementation and outcomes of telephone disclosure of clinical BRCA1/2 test results. Patient Educat Couns 2013; 93: 413-9.
Shiloh S, Dagan E, Friedman I, Blank N, Friedman E. A follow-up study on men tested for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations: impacts and coping processes. Psychooncology 2013; 22: 417-25.
Shedlosky-Shoemaker R, Ngo TL, Ferketich AK, Porter K, Leventha, H, Kelly KM. Exploring perceptions of genetic testing: an examination of perceived accuracy over time. Patient Educat Couns 2010; 78: 34-9.
Kelly KM, Senter L, Leventhal H, Ozakinci G, Porter K. Subjective and objective risk of ovarian cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish women testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Patient Educat Couns 2008; 70: 135-42.
Bradbury AR, Patrick-Miller L, Pawlowski K, et al. Learning of your parent’s BRCA mutation during adolescence or early adulthood: a study of offspring experiences. Psychooncology 2009; 18: 200-8.
Del Castillo A, Godoy-Izquierdo D, Vázquez ML, Godoy JF. Illness beliefs about cancer among healthy adults who have and have not lived with cancer patients. Int J Behav Med 2011; 18: 342-51.
Kowalkowski MA, Hart SL, Du XL, Baraniuk S, Latini DM. Cancer perceptions: implications from the 2007 health information national trends survey. J Cancer Surviv 2012; 6: 287-95.
Lykins EL, Graue LO, Brechting EH, Roach AR, Gochett CG, Andrykowski MA. Beliefs about cancer causation and prevention as a function of personal and family history of cancer: a national, population-based study. Psychooncology 2008; 17: 967-74.
Rabin C, Pinto B. Cancer-related beliefs and health behavior change among breast cancer survivors and their first-degree relatives. Psychooncology 2006; 15: 701-12.
Rubinstein WS, O’Neill SM, Rothrock N, Starzyk EJ, Beaumont JL, Acheson L. Components of family history associated with women’s disease perceptions for cancer: a report from the Family Healthware™ Impact Trial. Genet Med 2011; 13: 52-62.
van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heijboer H, Duivenvoorden HJ, et al. Comparison of individuals opting for BRCA1/2 or HNPCC genetic susceptibility testing with regard to coping, illness perceptions, illness experiences, family system characteristics and hereditary cancer distress. Patient Educat Couns 2007; 65: 58-68.
Cameron LD, Marteau TM, Brown PM, Klein WM, Sherman KA. Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence. J Behav Med 2012; 35: 286-98.
DiLorenzo TA, Schnur J, Montgomery GH, Erblich J, Winkel G, Bovbjerg DH. A model of disease-specific worry in heritable disease: the influence of family history, perceived risk and worry about other illnesses. J Behav Med 2006; 29: 37-49.
Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Horne R, Cameron LD, Buick L. The revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychol Health 2002; 17: 1-16.
Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res 2006; 60: 631-7.
Rygiel KA, Drozd M, Bułaś L. Care of cancer patients with liver and bone metastases – the place of pharmaceutical care in a balanced plan, focused on the patient’s needs and goals. Arch Med Sci in press; 10.5114/aoms.2016.60509.
Woźniacki P, Skokowski J, Bartoszek K, Kosowska A, Kalinowski L, Jaśkiewicz J. The impact of the Polish mass breast cancer screening program on prognosis in the Pomeranian Province. Arch Med Sci in press; DOI 10.5114/aoms.2016.60387.
Kaczka K, Fendler W, Borowiec M, et al. One-step nucleic acid amplification testing in medullary thyroid cancer lymph nodes: a case series. Arch Med Sci 2015; 11: 137-41.
Quick links
© 2019 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe