UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Tobacco exposure and breast cancer : perspectives of young women Ptolemy, Erin Christine 2011-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2012_spring_ptolemy_erin.pdf [ 943.36kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0072599.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0072599-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0072599-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0072599-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0072599-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0072599-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0072599-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0072599-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0072599.ris

Full Text

TOBACCO EXPOSURE AND BREAST CANCER: PERSPECTIVES OF YOUNG WOMEN  by  Erin Christine Ptolemy  BSW, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, 2008 BA, The University of Saskatchewan, 2006  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK in The College of Graduate Studies  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan)  November, 2011  © Erin Christine Ptolemy, 2011  ABSTRACT Based on available evidence researchers have concluded that young women who smoke or have regular long-term exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) have an increased risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer. To date there have been few efforts aimed at raising awareness among young women about this modifiable risk factor for breast cancer. The aim of this research was to further knowledge about young women aged 15 to 24 as an audience for messaging about tobacco smoke and breast cancer. Young women (n=121) responded to an online survey examining perceived importance of and interest in risk and risk reduction information, as well as potential barriers and strategies to messaging related to tobacco smoke and breast cancer risk. Participants ranged in age from 15 to 24 years, with the average age of participants being 21 years (SD= 2.21). The findings indicate that in general young women were interested in information about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer. Most participants identified that information about smoking and SHS is important to them at this stage of their life, and most participants reported that they were interested in learning about how to reduce their risk for tobacco-related breast cancer. Age was found to be an important factor influencing young women’s perceptions, with young adults holding more favourable attitudes towards information about breast cancer and smoking than teens. Potential barriers to messaging that young women identified include lack of motivation to find this information, not thinking about the long-term consequences of their actions, and beliefs that breast cancer is “something older women get”. Messaging strategies participants perceived as effective included providing young women with facts and personal stories of breast cancer, hearing about this information from peers, and targeting all smokers who place young women at risk for breast cancer with  ii  public awareness messages about smoking and breast cancer. These findings have important implications for future research, health messaging, policy development, and practice.  iii  PREFACE This research was approved by the UBC Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board on April 25, 2007. Ethics certificate #H07-00489.  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....……………………………………………………………………………..…... ii PREFACE.…………………………………………………………………………………….. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………. v LIST OF TABLES.………………………………………………………………………….... vii LIST OF FIGURES.…………………………………………………………………………. viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.………………………………………………………………...... ix 11  INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 11 1.11 1.21  21  Statement of the problem ................................................................................................ 11 Study aims and overview ................................................................................................ 31  LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 51 2.11 Breast cancer in Canada .................................................................................................. 51 2.21 Implications of premenopausal breast cancer ................................................................. 61 2.31 Risk factors for breast cancer .......................................................................................... 81 2.3.11 Tobacco exposure is a risk factor for breast cancer .................................................... 91 2.41 Young women’s tobacco exposure ............................................................................... 111 2.4.11 Active smoking ......................................................................................................... 111 2.4.21 Passive smoking ........................................................................................................ 121 2.51 Prevention efforts targeted to young women ................................................................ 131 2.5.11 Messages specific to tobacco as a risk factor for breast cancer ................................ 131 2.5.21 Active smoking ......................................................................................................... 141 2.5.31 Secondhand smoke.................................................................................................... 151 2.5.41 Breast cancer messages ............................................................................................. 171 2.5.51 Messaging summary ................................................................................................. 171 2.61 Conceptual framework .................................................................................................. 181 2.6.11 Models of health behaviour change .......................................................................... 181 2.6.21 The Health Action Process Approach ....................................................................... 201 2.6.31 Adapted HAPA model .............................................................................................. 221 2.71 Research questions ........................................................................................................ 231  31  METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 261 3.11 Study Design ................................................................................................................. 261 3.21 The Smoking and Breast Cancer Messages for Young Women Survey ...................... 261 3.31 Sampling and recruitment procedures .......................................................................... 271 3.41 Measures ....................................................................................................................... 281 3.4.11 Sociodemographic and background factors .............................................................. 281 3.4.21 Importance of risk information ................................................................................. 291 3.4.31 Interest in risk information........................................................................................ 301 v  3.4.41 Interest in risk reduction information ....................................................................... 301 3.4.51 Intention to reduce tobacco exposure ....................................................................... 301 3.4.61 Barriers to raising awareness .................................................................................... 311 3.4.71 Strategies for raising awareness ................................................................................ 311 3.51 Analysis......................................................................................................................... 321 41  RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 341 4.11 4.21 4.31  51  Sample description ........................................................................................................ 341 Findings related to research questions .......................................................................... 361 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 491  DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 501 5.11 Summary of findings..................................................................................................... 501 5.21 The HAPA model ......................................................................................................... 511 5.31 Perceived importance of and interest in risk information ............................................. 511 5.41 Importance of and interest in risk reduction ................................................................. 531 5.51 Intent to change tobacco exposure ................................................................................ 541 5.61 Barriers and strategies to messaging ............................................................................. 551 5.6.11 Barriers ...................................................................................................................... 551 5.6.21 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 571 5.71 Age ................................................................................................................................ 581 5.81 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 601 5.91 Sex and gender-based analysis...................................................................................... 611 5.101 Implications................................................................................................................... 621 5.10.11 Research implications ........................................................................................... 621 5.10.21 Policy and practice implications ........................................................................... 631 5.10.2.11 Macro and meso-level implications .............................................................. 641 5.10.2.21 Micro-level implications ............................................................................... 651 5.111 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 661  REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….....68 APPENDICES.……………………………………………………………………………….....83 Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………....83 Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………....85  vi  LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Risk factors for breast cancer ........................................................................................... 91 Table 2. Characteristics of the sample (n=121) ........................................................................... 351 Table 3. SHS and smoking information importance related to sociodemographic and background characteristics .................................................................................................... 371 Table 4. Interest in SHS and smoking breast cancer risk information related to sociodemographic and background characteristics ................................................................ 411 Table 5. A comparison of sociodemographic and background characteristics affecting importance of specific information regarding smoking and secondhand smoke as risk factors for breast cancer .......................................................................................... 421 Table 6. Sociodemographic and background characteristics affecting perceived importance of peer knowledge of risk reduction techniques ............................................................ 431 Table 7. Ratings of the effectiveness of messaging strategies for communicating information about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer .................................. 481  vii  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Leading types of cancer among Canadian women ages 20-49, percentage of new cases ................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2. Leading causes of cancer mortality among Canadian women ages 20-49, percentage of deaths .......................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3. The Health Action Process Approach .......................................................................... 21 Figure 4. Adapted HAPA model .................................................................................................. 23 Figure 5. Frequency with which participants endorsed reasons for importance of SHS information ................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 6. Frequency with which participants endorsed reasons for importance of smoking information ................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 7. Frequency of participants endorsing perceived barriers to tobacco and breast cancer risk messaging .............................................................................................................. 46 Figure 8. Frequency by age group of participants endorsing perceived barriers to tobacco and breast cancer messaging ............................................................................................... 47  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to all of the participants of this study; without them this study would not have been possible. Thank you to the organizations that assisted in recruiting participants. I would also like to acknowledge the following CIHR Strategic Training Programs for their financial and training support: the Strategic Training Program in Tobacco Research (STPTR), Psychosocial Oncology Research Training (PORT), and the Integrated Mentorship Program in Addictions Research Training (IMPART). Thank you to the BC Child and Youth Health Research Network for providing me a student internship in child and youth health research, allowing me to train closely with researchers in the field. Thank you also to various funding opportunities through UBC Okanagan that I have benefitted from including the Bill Tymchuk Memorial Cancer Research Award, the Graduate Fellowship Award, and the Bryce Carnine Memorial Prize. Thank you to my co-supervisors, Dr. Joan Bottorff and Dr. Edward Taylor, and Dr. Shirley Chau for your wisdom, expertise, and continual support throughout this process. A special thank you to the Institute for Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Prevention at UBC Okanagan. The training opportunities and support that I have received though my involvement with the Institute over the years has been invaluable. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends who have contributed to this work in more ways than they know. A special thanks to my husband, Eric, whose love and support provided me the strength to complete this process, and who always provided a welcome distraction.  ix  1  INTRODUCTION  1.1  Statement of the problem Smoking and secondhand smoke (SHS)1 exposure among young women2 is a significant  health concern because it elevates risk for many tobacco-related diseases later in life. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death worldwide (Leung et al., 2007; Young, Leatherdale, Sloan, Krieger, & Barisic, 2009); the World Health Organization estimates that about half of long-term smokers will die as a result of their smoking (World Health Organization, 1999). Smoking has been identified as a cause for over 15 types of cancer and is a contributing factor to many other chronic diseases (Collishaw et al., 2009; International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). Smoking has a wideranging impact on health. It harms nearly every organ in the body, causes a variety of diseases, and reduces one’s overall health and wellness (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008). Exposure to SHS also has adverse health implications with long-term exposure to SHS associated with respiratory problems (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2005a; Jaakkola, Plipari, Jaakkola, & Jaakkola, 2003), lung cancer (Brennan et al., 2004), and cardiovascular disease (Barnoya & Glanz, 2005; California Environmental Protection Agency, 2005b). Recent studies have shown that exposure to tobacco smoke (active smoking or SHS) in childhood and adolescence may result in a near doubling of risk for premenopausal breast cancer (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2005b; Collishaw et al., 2009; Johnson, 2005b). Based on a review of epidemiological and toxicological studies, a Canadian Expert Panel of researchers have concluded that the evidence is consistent with a causal link between active smoking and pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer and for long-term regular exposure to SHS  1 2  Also referred to as ‘environmental tobacco smoke’ (ETS), ‘involuntary smoking’, or ‘passive smoking’ Defined as women aged 50 and younger (Baucom, Porter, Kirby, Gremore, & Keefe, 2006)  1  and premenopausal breast cancer (Collishaw et al., 2009). Although causal mechanisms are as yet unclear, epidemiological and toxicological studies demonstrate that breast tissue in its growth stage and during first pregnancy is sensitive to carcinogens in tobacco smoke (Innes & Byers, 2001; Lash & Aschengrau, 1999; Okasha, McCarron, Gunnell, & Smith, 2003). Increased tobacco control measures in recent decades have reduced the overall prevalence of smoking and SHS exposure in Canada. However rates of SHS exposure among youth are still high, with 34% of Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) respondents reporting that they were exposed to SHS -at least once a week and another 11% reporting daily exposure to SHS (Health Canada, 2008). Smoking in the home still occurs; with 13% of Canadians reporting that at least one person smokes in their home (Health Canada, 2008). Recent CTUMS data show that smoking among Canadian youth has plateaued with 18% males and 13% of females aged 15 to 19 being smokers (Health Canada, 2008). However, older age of smoking onset among young adult women is becoming a trend; 2008 CTUMS data show that 23% of Canadian females aged 20 to 24 are smokers (Health Canada, 2008). This demonstrates that adolescence and young adulthood is a critical period when the majority of tobacco experimentation and uptake occurs, and emphasizes the importance of understanding young women’s perceptions of smoking and SHS exposure during this critical time period. Because most other established risk factors for breast cancer are not amenable to modification, reducing tobacco exposure may offer one of the few opportunities to prevent and reduce breast cancer incidence. To date there have been few efforts aimed at raising awareness among young women about this modifiable risk factor for breast cancer (Haines et al., 2010).  2  1.2  Study aims and overview Evidence of the relationship between the development of breast cancer and both active  and passive smoke exposure among young women makes this an extremely important and timely issue, and provides a new opportunity to engage young women in tobacco control interventions. A better understanding is needed of young women’s responses to this new risk information and their preferences for receiving interventions. Before young women change their tobacco behaviours (active smoking or SHS exposure), they need to become motivated to do so. Examination of the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model provides insight about the motivational processes of behavioural intent formation and how to motivate young women to reduce their tobacco exposure. Sociodemographic (i.e., age, SES, ethnicity, education) and background characteristics (i.e., smoking status, frequency of SHS exposure, family history of breast cancer) were added to the model to ensure consideration of young women’s social contexts. The aims of this master’s thesis study were to: 1) describe young women’s attitudes3 toward information about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer; 2) identify predictors of behavioural intent in the motivational phase of the adapted HAPA model; and 3) describe young women’s perceived barriers and preferred messaging strategies about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer. This thesis will begin with a detailed review of the literature pertaining to premenopausal breast cancer rates in Canada and the implications of early breast cancer for young women. Breast cancer risk factors, including tobacco exposure, will be outlined. Young women’s exposure to tobacco (active smoking and SHS) is detailed, and how social workers and other helping professions can become involved tobacco control and cancer prevention will be  3  Attitudes are defined as: 1) perceived importance of risk information, 2) interest in risk information, 3) interest in risk reduction information  3  highlighted. Current tobacco reduction and breast cancer messaging efforts will be discussed. Research questions and hypotheses derived from the discussion of the literature will be presented. This will be followed by the study methods.  4  2 2.1  LITERATURE REVIEW Breast cancer in Canada Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed female cancer in the world, accounting  for 22% of all new female cancer diagnoses (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004). Canadian female breast cancer rates are amongst the highest in the world with other westernized nations (i.e., United States, Australia, and Northern Europe) having similar incidence rates (Canadia-n Cancer Society, 2007; Cancer Care Ontario, 2006; International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004). In Canada, 1 in 9 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime and 1 in 27 will die from it (Canadian Cancer Society, 2007). While breast cancer incidence and mortality rates among Canadian women of all ages have fallen in recent decades, breast cancer is the most common cancer in women under 50 years of age (Figure 1) and is the most common cancer cause of death of women under age 50 (Figure 2).  Figure 1. Leading types of cancer among Canadian women ages 20-49, percentage of new cases (Canadian Cancer Society, 2007).  5  Figure 2. Leading causes of cancer mortality among Canadian women ages 20-49, percentage of deaths (Canadian Cancer Society, 2007). Breast cancer awareness and prevention programs have been successful in promoting awareness of certain risk factors for breast cancer (i.e., heredity) and early detection via clinical breast exams, self breast exams, and other screening programs (i.e., mammography) (Silk et al., 2006). This awareness, combined with advances in adjuvant therapies, has resulted in increased likelihood of long-term survival after a breast cancer diagnosis (Baucom, Porter, Kirby, Gremore, Keefe (2006), Canadian Cancer Society, 2007; Montazeri, 2008). Breast cancer occurring before menopause profoundly affects women’s health, wellness, and overall quality of life, the effects of which can persist long after the initial diagnosis and treatment (Baucom et al., 2006; Bloom, Stewart, Chang, & Banks, 2004; Montazeri, 2008). 2.2  Implications of premenopausal breast cancer Premenopausal breast cancer is defined as breast cancer occurring in women 50 years of  age and younger (Baucom et al., 2006; Wenzel et al., 1999). This age cut-off is supported in epidemiologic literature and is concurrent with the general age of menopause onset. The incidence rate of premenopausal breast cancer is less than that of postmenopausal breast cancer; 6  however women with premenopausal breast cancer tend to have poorer prognostic features that lead to higher recurrence rates and higher relative mortality rates (Yankaskas, 2005). Because many women under age 50 do not receive routine mammograms and the density of young breast tissue makes screening difficult, breast cancer in young women may be detected at a later stage (Bloom, Stewart, Chang, Banks, 2004, Yankaskas, 2005). Premenopausal breast cancer is generally more aggressive than later breast cancers and requires treatments that are more toxic than those received by older women (Baucom et al., 2006; Bloom et al., 2004). There are age-related implications of having breast cancer, and it is important to understand the unique needs and challenges that young women face when diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50. Younger women experience significantly greater losses in physical and social function, and mental health (Avis, Crawford, & Manuel, 2005; Baucom et al., 2006; Ganz, Greendale, Petersen, Kahn, & Bower, 2003; Kroenke et al., 2004). Premenopausal breast cancer comes with increased risk of infertility and early menopause (Ganz et al., 2003; Partridge et al., 2004). The physical side effects of treatment usually differ for young women than from older women with lymphedema, menopause, infertility, menstrual changes, and weight gain tending to persist long-term for young women (Avis et al., 2005; Baucom et al., 2006; Bloom et al., 2004; Ganz, Rowland, Desmond, Meyerowitz, & Wyatt, 1998; Kroenke et al., 2004; Montazeri, 2008). Evidence demonstrates that, compared to older women, young women with breast cancer have a lower quality of life that persists years after initial diagnosis (Avis et al., 2005). An unexpected cancer diagnosis at a young age can “lead to a more profound sense of relative deprivation among younger persons- that the disease has forfeited their future” (Mor, Allen, & Malin, 1994, p.2125), and is highly disruptive to young couples, families, and expected life plans (Ganz et al., 2003). It is estimated that one-third to one-half of women with breast cancer experience  7  psychological distress that impacts functioning over time (Avis et al., 2005; Bloom et al., 2004; Ganz et al., 2003). Young women often report feelings of loss of control, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Partridge et al., 2004). Many women in this age demographic are developing and/or peaking in their professional careers, and are likely to be less financially secure than older women (Baucom et al., 2006; Bloom et al., 2004; Maunsell et al., 2004). Developmentally, many women 50 years of age and under are married or in committed relationships, and may have children at home (Baucom et al., 2006; Bloom et al., 2004). Sexuality and body image are central components of young women’s lives that are particularly impacted by an early breast cancer diagnosis (Bloom et al., 2004; Fobair et al., 2006; Ganz et al., 1998; Ganz et al., 2003; Wenzel et al., 1999). As many as 50% of young women affected by early breast cancer report changes in sexual desire, inability to enjoy sex, difficulty in reaching orgasm, anxiety about performance, and pain during intercourse (Fobair et al., 2006; Wenzel et al., 1999). Young women often experience negative body image in relation to sexuality and relationships, perceived loss of femininity and body integrity, and concerns about appearance particularly if there is any evidence of treatment (i.e., mastectomy scars) (Fobair et al., 2006). Efforts to reduce the incidence of premenopausal breast cancer are the most effective way of reducing morbidity and mortality among women under the age of 50 associated with breast cancer. 2.3  Risk factors for breast cancer Factors known to increase risk of breast cancer include modifiable behaviours and non-  modifiable characteristics. Non-modifiable risk factors are those that cannot be changed or controlled. Modifiable risk factors are those which can be potentially changed or controlled. Modifiable risk factors for breast cancer are of particular importance to health researchers and  8  healthcare professionals as they are behaviours that can be targeted with tailored interventions to reduce one’s breast cancer risk. The risk factors for breast cancer for women of all ages are shown in Table 1 (Canadian Cancer Society, 2007; Cancer Care Ontario, 2006). Table 1. Risk factors for breast cancer. Reproductive/hormonal • • • • • • •  Fewer births Later age at first full-term pregnancy Did not breastfeed Early age at menarche Irregular menses Late menopause Use of exogenous hormones  Lifestyle • • • • • •  Smoking Exposure to secondhand smoke Obesity Poor nutrition Physical inactivity Alcohol consumption  Other • • • •  Family history of breast cancer BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations Exposure to ionizing radiation Benign breast disease  Non-modifiable characteristics include heredity factors (i.e., BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutations, family history of breast cancer) and reproductive/hormonal factors (i.e., fewer births, early age at menarche, irregular menses, not breastfeeding, later age at first full-term pregnancy) (Canadian Cancer Society, 2007; Cancer Care Ontario, 2006). Reproductive/hormonal factors are thought to increase a woman’s lifetime exposure to estrogens and contribute to increased breast cancer risk (Collishaw et al., 2009; Kelsey, 1993). Modifiable factors include obesity, physical inactivity, regular alcohol consumption (Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, 2002), and exposure to tobacco (active smoking and SHS). 2.3.1 Tobacco exposure is a risk factor for breast cancer Based on epidemiological and toxicological studies, as well as an understanding of biological mechanisms, a Canadian Expert Panel of researchers recently concluded that evidence is consistent with a causal relationship between active smoking and pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer (Collishaw et al., 2009). The Panel also concluded that regular long-term exposure to SHS increases a woman’s risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer by 68 to 120% (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2005b; Collishaw et al., 2009; Johnson, 2005b). 9  Toxicology. There are more than 170 toxic substances in tobacco smoke including carbon monoxide, nicotine, benzene, tar, nickel, benz(a)pyrene, formaldehyde, and nitrogen oxides (Hecht, 2002; Hoffman & Hecht, 1989). Of these toxic substances there are at least 20 identified human carcinogens in tobacco smoke, including benzo[a]pyrene, dibenzo[al]pyrene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosoodiethylamine, N-nitrosoodi-n-butyl-amine, 4aminobiphenyl, benzene, and isoprene (Hecht, 2002; International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004). Different types of smoke have similar chemical compounds but differing toxicities, with evidence demonstrating that sidestream smoke is three to four times more toxic than mainstream smoke (Collishaw et al., 2009; Schick & Glanz, 2006). Sidestream smoke is the smoke produced by an idling cigarette. Mainstream smoke is the smoke directly inhaled through the cigarette by the smoker. Secondhand smoke is the combination of sidestream smoke, mainstream smoke, and aged smoke (Leatherdale, Smith, & Ahmed, 2008). Biological mechanisms. Although direct causal mechanisms are as yet unknown, there is sufficient biological evidence to demonstrate that exposure to carcinogens in tobacco smoke can lead to breast cancer (Collishaw et al., 2009; Morabia, 2002). The time between onset of puberty and first full-term pregnancy is a critical period of increased risk of breast cancer in relation to tobacco exposure because this is a period of rapid breast cell proliferation. Breast tissue does not become fully differentiated until after a full-term pregnancy and until this time is particularly sensitive to carcinogens in tobacco smoke (Young et al., 2009). Tobacco smoke contains over a dozen fat-soluble compounds that are known to induce mammary tumours in rats (Collishaw et al., 2009). Some of the carcinogenic components of tobacco smoke reach the breast and are secreted into breast milk. Electrophilic metabolites of tobacco compounds bind to DNA and form DNA adducts that can be detected in normal and cancerous breast tissue from women who are  10  current or former smokers, or who are passively exposed to tobacco smoke (Hecht, 2002). Cigarette smoking is inversely related to obesity, which is a demonstrated risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004). Antiestrogenic effects of smoking may also override potential carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke (Collishaw et al., 2009; Hecht, 2002). However the bulk of the evidence suggests that exposure to tobacco smoke causes more harm than good, and therefore precautions should be taken to avoid exposure to SHS and smoking during this developmental period. 2.4  Young women’s tobacco exposure 2.4.1 Active smoking Tobacco control efforts in recent decades have reduced the prevalence of active smoking  among Canadian youth, yet a substantial proportion of females aged 15-24 are smokers. While males across all age groups report higher prevalence of smoking than females, 15% of female youth aged 15 to 19 smoke and 23% aged 20 to 24 smoke (Health Canada, 2008). This dramatic increase in prevalence rate during early adulthood is a result of gendered patterns of tobacco use that influence when and why females smoke. Females start smoking at an earlier age and maintain or increase consumption for different reasons than males, including using cigarettes to suppress appetite and control weight, to deal with stress and suppress negative emotions, increase self-esteem, project a particular image to peers, and to foster a sense of independence and control over life (Gilbert, 2005; Seguire & Chalmers, 2000). Regular adolescent female smokers are more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds (i.e., lower socioeconomic status) (Valentich, 1994). Initiation of smoking during the early teenage years (prior to age 16) is a common occurrence in this demographic group (Backinger, Fagan, Matthews, & Grana, 2003; Kaplan & Weiler, 1997; Seguire & Chalmers, 2000), which increases risk for premenopausal  11  breast cancer. While many regular smokers begin smoking before the age of 18 (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006), a trend is emerging that challenges this assumption. Hammond (2005) reported that one fifth of young adult Canadian smokers tried their first cigarette after the age of 18. Young adulthood is a period of significant life transition, which includes changes in social networks, living location, roommates, and school and work settings (Hammond, 2005). Young adult females have increased susceptibility to smoking during this period, and many smokers’ average daily consumption increases to the level of an average adult smoker (BC Women's Health Research Network, 2007b; Hammond, 2005). This is reflected in current Canadian smoking prevalence rates among young women, and demonstrates that adolescence and early adulthood are critical periods in which to intervene with tobacco control efforts targeted to young women. 2.4.2 Passive smoking The extent of SHS exposure among Canadian youth is likely underestimated (Leatherdale et al., 2008), however lifetime assessments of SHS exposure among women in Western countries suggest that 80 to 95% of women are exposed to SHS in residential and/or occupational settings (Collishaw et al., 2009). CTUMS data show that youth in Canada are exposed to SHS on a regular basis, with 34% of youth reporting SHS exposure at least once a week and 11% of youth reporting daily exposure (Health Canada, 2008). Smoking still exists in the home; 23% of nonsmoking youth and 50% of smoking youth are exposed to SHS in their homes on a daily basis. Twenty-six percent of youth are exposed to SHS in a vehicle at least once a week (Leatherdale et al., 2008). Rates of SHS exposure are higher for females than males (Leatherdale et al., 2008), with gendered social roles likely contributing to women’s elevated rate of exposure and making it more difficult for them to request that others not smoke around them (BC Women's Health  12  Research Network, 2007a; Bottorff et al., 2010). Service-industry jobs are predominantly held by women, and until recently indoor public smoking bans were put in place women were frequently exposed to SHS in their workplace (BC Women's Health Research Network, 2007a). In addition to being exposed to SHS more frequently than males, evidence is emerging that women may be more susceptible to the negative health effects of SHS exposure than men (BC Women's Health Research Network, 2007a; Leatherdale et al., 2008). Women are at higher risk for SHS-related cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, respiratory tract problems, and lung cancer than men (BC Women's Health Research Network, 2007a). There is a growing need for programs and policies to protect young women from SHS (Bottorff et al., 2010; Leatherdale et al., 2008). 2.5  Prevention efforts targeted to young women 2.5.1 Messages specific to tobacco as a risk factor for breast cancer To date there are few smoking prevention or intervention efforts that have included  attempts to raise awareness about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer (Bottorff et al., 2006; Bottorff et al., 2010; Haines et al., 2010). As part of a larger study, Haines et al. (2010) conducted a search of breast cancer messages targeting young women in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. There were only two messages that included any reference to smoking or SHS as a risk factor for breast cancer (Haines et al., 2010). Focus group research reveals that young women are interested in receiving more information about this risk factor for breast cancer (Bottorff et al., 2010). There remains an urgent need for information targeted to young women about how tobacco contributes to breast cancer risk, and steps for women to take to reduce their risk for developing the disease.  13  2.5.2  Active smoking  Anti-smoking advertisements have been effective in reducing smoking rates for the general public (Rhodes, Roskos-Ewoldsen, Eno, & Monahan, 2009) and are particularly effective with adolescents when used as part of larger campaigns (i.e., series of graphic warning labels on cigarettes, billboards, magazine ads) (Sabbane, Lowrey, & Chebat, 2009). Unfortunately messages specifically targeting young adults are not common, and the effectiveness of individual ads targeted to youth has been questioned. It is suggested that current anti-smoking campaigns do not offer youth incentives not to smoke nor any positive reinforcement to encourage youth to change their smoking behaviours (Gilbert, 2005). These campaigns set a norm of health conduct (i.e., smoking is unhealthy and should not be done) which youth often resist by actively initiating or continuing to smoke (Biener, Ji, Gilpin, & Albers, 2004; Rhodes et al., 2009). School-based prevention and intervention programs are efficacious in the short-term by delaying smoking initiation, enhancing anti-smoking attitudes, and teaching skills to resist social pressures (Backinger et al., 2003). However school-based interventions do not appear to have long-term effects for adolescent and young adult females (Backinger et al., 2003; Seguire & Chalmers, 2000). In particular, anti-smoking campaigns that espouse the medical effects of smoking may backfire when targeting young women (Gilbert, 2005). Smoking is a part of young female smokers’ identities and is used to serve a function in their daily lives (Gilbert, 2005). Smoking prevention and intervention programs must be holistic in nature and acknowledge the function that smoking serves for young women, as well as the multiple social, psychological, biological, and environmental influences that impact their lives (Backinger et al., 2003; Seguire & Chalmers, 2000). Mass media has been effective in targeting youth, particularly youth at high risk for regular smoking (Anderson, Chad, & Spink, 2005).  14  Seguire and Chalmers (2000) suggest that successfully targeting women via mass media is achieved by focusing on certain subpopulations (i.e., children, pre-teens), understanding their preferences and smoking behaviours, and illustrating ways in which they can change their behaviours. Recommendations for media messages to increase youths’ awareness of their particular health risks include using, optimistic and non-judgmental approach (Gilbert, 2005) and incorporating immediate, short-term, and long-term effects of smoking in a thought-provoking and believable message (Biener et al., 2004; Goldman & Glantz, 1998). Multi-modal programming has been demonstrated to have durable success in reducing youth tobacco prevalence, and combines components of school and community-based interventions (Anderson et al., 2005; Backinger et al., 2003; Unger, Boley Cruz, Schuster, Flora, & Anderson Johnson, 2001). Multi-modal programming can include media advocacy, family communications, product sales deterrents, and anti-tobacco activities (Backinger et al., 2003; Biener et al., 2004). 2.5.3 Secondhand smoke In comparison to the plethora of research on anti-smoking messages and campaigns, the issue of SHS exposure has not been as well explored. There is scant literature about the relationship between SHS messaging and youth attitudes and behaviour change (Halpern-Felsher & Rubinstein, 2005). Often SHS messaging is done in conjunction with active smoking and it is therefore difficult to identify which aspects of SHS messages and campaigns appeal to young women (Evans et al., 2006; Halpern-Felsher & Rubinstein, 2005). Like smoking, tobacco exposure behaviours are “inextricably tied to the socio-cultural, socio-structural, and socioeconomic context in which people find themselves” (Gilbert, 2005, p.232). A major challenge is to develop messages that appeal to the context of young women’s daily lives and convey information about the health risks of SHS (Evans et al., 2006). Most youth are bothered by SHS  15  exposure but are too timid to speak out about it to smoking friends and family (Health Canada, 2006). Thus widespread SHS awareness messages and campaigns have been recommended to change public attitudes and health behaviour among all smokers to prevent young women’s SHS exposure (Evans et al., 2006).The majority of youth receive messages about the health effects of SHS exposure via the media (television, newspapers, magazines) (Kennedy & Bero, 1999; Kurtz, Kurtz, Johnson, & Copper, 2001). The aim of SHS messages is to convince smokers that they are harming others around them (Goldman & Glantz, 1998); a technique that is effective with youth and can deter initiation of smoking (Halpern-Felsher & Rubinstein, 2005; Pechmann, Zhao, Goldberg, & Thomas Reibling, 2003; Song, Glantz, & Halpern-Felsher, 2009). Denormalization of smoking and SHS exposure has also been suggested to be a powerful strategy for targeting adolescent smoking, and most SHS messages attempt to denormalize smoking by portraying the effects of smoking on nonsmokers to motivate smokers to quit (Goldman & Glantz, 1998). It has been suggested that effectiveness of media messages to increase awareness of health risks associated with SHS could be enhanced by emphasizing the benefit of smoke-free environments, lending support for smoke-free policies in the community, and supplementing school and based community programs with SHS prevention objectives (Li et al., 2003; Niederdeppe, Fiore, & Smith, 2008). Pechmann et al. (2003) suggest that SHS exposure messages should stress risk vulnerability, not severity, when attempting to target youth and to couple it with a true-life story. However, recommendations for SHS messages for youth have not taken into account gender influences that may impact receptivity, nor the need for gender-specific messages (e.g., as is required to increase awareness about tobacco smoke and breast cancer risk).  16  2.5.4 Breast cancer messages Media is the primary source by which adolescent females receive the bulk of their healthrelated messages, including information about breast cancer prevention, detection, and treatment (Smith et al., 2009). Unfortunately media coverage of breast cancer often contributes to young women’s uncertainty and misconceptions about the causes of breast cancer, risk factors, preventative actions, and credible sources of information (Haines et al., 2010; Volkman & Silk, 2008). Biological risk factors receive privileged media coverage compared to modifiable environmental risk factors (Atkin, Smith, McFeters, & Ferguson, 2008; Smith et al., 2009; Terre, 2009). This may contribute to young women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk reduction as irrelevant and distal in nature, thereby decreasing the chance of risk reduction behaviours being taken up (Smith et al., 2009; Terre, 2009; Volkman & Silk, 2008). In the absence of an immediate threat to their health, youth often have difficulty relating their current lifestyle practices to their future adult health status (Anderson et al., 2005; Volkman & Silk, 2008). There are challenges, therefore, in increasing awareness breast-cancer related issues among young women. Evidence shows that even modest population level changes toward healthy behaviours can make a significant improvement in cancer prevention and control (Terre, 2009). Messaging strategies that have potential to position breast cancer risk as salient to young women include addressing myths about breast cancer, providing basic information about how to reduce risk and increase overall health, and use casual and familiar language (Silk et al., 2006). 2.5.5 Messaging summary Messages that motivate young women toward prevention behaviours are valuable because they reduce the occurrence of disease later in life and contribute to women’s overall  17  health and wellness (Silk et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2009). How health messages are communicated to the target audience determines the salience and impact of the messages (Peters et al., 2005). It is, therefore, critical to identify mechanisms underlying behavioural change for a target audience and base health messages on formative research. Mounting evidence supports a media-based, multimodal approach that addresses a variety of factors relevant to young women (Lantz et al., 2000; Terre, 2009). For messages to have an effect the target population must be exposed to, pay attention to, like, comprehend, and take action on the message (Peters et al., 2006). Media messages delivered through various information channels have the greatest potential to reach intended audiences. Health-oriented individuals tend to utilize active channels that require effort to retrieve the information they need (i.e., newspapers, internet). Less healthconscious individuals can be reached through passive information channels such as television and radio (Atkin et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2009). Messages that use actors that adolescents find appealing and attractive have been found to capture young women’s attention and lead to an increased likelihood of engagement in risk reduction behaviours (Shadel, Fryer, & Tharp-Taylor, 2009). Messages that minimize persuasiveness and stress freedom of choice and control over one’s own body have also been recommended for adolescents to support desires to begin to make their own choices in life (Grandpre, Alvaro, Burgoon, Miller, & Hall, 2003). 2.6  Conceptual framework 2.6.1 Models of health behaviour change Several models and theories of behaviour change have been developed to guide research  and health promotion practice. Health behaviour change theories, such as the Health Belief Model or Protection Motivation Theory, are considered continuum models. Continuum models identify variables that influence behavioural action and combine them in a prediction equation  18  (Weinstein, Rothman, & Sutton, 1998). The value generated represents the probability that person will act and places the person on a continuum of action likelihood. Interventions based on continuum models focus on increasing relevant action-related variables (Lippke & Zieglemann, 20008). Drawbacks of continuum models include the assumption that action-influencing variables are combined in a linear fashion and sequenced the same way for everyone with no individual variability (Schwarzer, 2008b; Weinstein et al., 1998). Interventions based on continuum models generally tend to be one-size-fits-all (Lippke & Zieglemann, 20008), and that behaviour is an outcome of a conscious intention (Schwarzer, 2008a). Individuals vary greatly in terms of background, experiences, and cognitive processes, and the assumption of predictable linearity toward action seems implicitly incorrect. Stage theories/models of behaviour propose that people progress through different phases/stages toward behaviour change, and that there are specific cognitive factors in each stage that contribute to an individual’s progress toward a behavioural goal (Armitage & Conner, 2000; DeBarr, 2004). Persons at different stages are qualitatively different with respect to risk perceptions, cognitions, barriers, and action tendencies (Armitage & Conner, 2000; Schwarzer, 2008a). It is necessary that messages and interventions are tailored to match the various stages of behaviour change and people’s needs within each stage to increase young women’s intent to adopt risk reduction behaviours (i.e., quitting/reducing smoking, eliminating/reducing SHS exposure). Evidence demonstrates that individuals pay more attention to personally relevant information, process it more intensively, and show better memory and recall (Armitage & Conner, 2000; DeBarr, 2004; Wiedemann, 2009). The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model can be used as an intervention planning tool in a wide variety of health-enhancing and health-protective behaviours (Schwarzer et al., 2003).  19  It is quite common that people do not behave in accordance with their intentions. Qualitative differences between people at this transition period are likely responsible for failing to translate intention into action (Schulz, Sniehotta, Mallach, Wiedemann, & Schwarzer, 2009; Sutton, 2008). HAPA is a multi-stage model that is unique among continuum and stage models of health behaviour change in that it bridges the intention-behaviour gap; that is when intentions are not sufficient enough to fully explain behaviour (Schulz et al., 2009). For the purposes of the present study, the focus will be on the motivational phase of the HAPA model. The intentional construct of the model will be explored to understand the influence of sociodemographic factors, background factors, and risk perceptions of smoking and SHS on formation of behavioural intent. Survey findings will be analyzed through the lens of the HAPA model and frame evidence-based recommendations for facilitating intention formation and action in young women’s tobacco exposure behaviours. 2.6.2 The Health Action Process Approach The Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) is a multi-stage, social cognitive model of health behaviour. This approach suggests that the adoption, initiation, and maintenance of health behaviours progress through two phases: a preintentional motivational phase and postintentional volition phase (Armitage & Conner, 2000; Schwarzer et al., 2003; Schwarzer, 2008a). The motivational phase culminates in the development of behavioural intentions, which are implemented into actual behaviours via volitional processes of planning and action (Schwarzer et al., 2003; Wiedemann, 2009). The volitional phase involves the processes of implementing intent into action (Schwarzer et al., 2003).  20  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  Motivational Phase  Volitional Phase  Figure 3. The Health Action Process Approach (Schwarzer, 2008). The motivational phase consists of non-intenders4; those persons who have not yet set a goal to act (Wiedemann, 2009). In this phase risk perception, outcome expectancies, and self-efficacy foster goal setting (Wiedemann, 2009). A minimum level of risk awareness must exist before a person begins to weigh the positive versus negative outcome expectancies of engaging in risk reduction behaviour. Perceiving more beneficial outcomes than negative outcomes results in a greater intent to engage in behaviour (Schwarzer et al., 2003). Simultaneously, the person considers their ability to effectively perform these behaviours (Schwarzer et al., 2003).The end of the motivational phase occurs when a person develops behavioural intention (Schwarzer et al., 2003). Intentions comprise a person’s motivation toward a desired behaviour or goal, and are a good predictor of subsequent behaviour (Schwarzer et al., 2003). The volitional phase of the model consists of two sub-stages and marks the beginning of behavioural action processes. The  4  Also known as ‘pre-intenders’  21  intention stage comprises intenders; those persons motivated to change but not yet acting on this. Intent must be transformed into action by planning; providing strategic instructions about how to perform the desired behaviour (Schwarzer, 2008a). Action and coping planning and self-efficacy foster progress through the action stage. Lastly, the action stage consists of actors; people who already perform the behaviour and are now in maintenance (Schwarzer, 2008a). Relapse prevention is an important element to incorporate in this stage of behaviour change. 2.6.3 Adapted HAPA model The HAPA model neglects sociodemographic factors and other potentially important background factors in development of behavioural intent and action. The HAPA model implicitly assumes a high degree of universality; that is, health behaviour can be predicted solely on socio-cognitive variables regardless of the participant’s age, gender, and ethnocultural background (Chow & Mullan, 2010; McBride et al., 2008). However it is important to understand that health behaviours occur within a broader social context. Demographic variables are important influencing factors when assessing risk perceptions, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations (Mehrotra, Noar, Zimmerman, & Palmgreen, 2009; Savage, 1993). The HAPA model has been adapted to include the effects of age, gender, education, and ethnicity on motivational processes of risk perceptions, outcome expectancies, and self-efficacy (see Figure 4). Tobacco exposure (i.e., smoking status and exposure to SHS) and family history of breast cancer have also been incorporated into the HAPA model as background factors. Research has demonstrated differences in risk perception among smoking and non-smoking adolescents (Halpern-Felsher & Rubinstein, 2005) as well as those who have experiences of a family member with breast cancer.  22  Sociodemographic Factors - Gender, age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, education Other Background Factors - Family history of BC - Tobacco exposure (smoking status & SHS exposure)  Selfefficacy  Outcome expectancy  Intention  Planning  Action  Risk perception  Motivational Phase  Volitional Phase  Figure 4. Adapted HAPA model 2.7  Research questions Adolescence and young adulthood is a period of increased vulnerability to tobacco-  related breast cancer, and is also a period when health promotion campaigns have the greatest opportunity to influence tobacco uptake (Bottorff et al., 2010). Young women should understand that evidence suggests that the relationship between tobacco exposure and premenopausal breast cancer is consistent with causality (Collishaw et al., 2009). There is a need to promote awareness of this information among young women and the benefits of reducing their risk for breast cancer. Development of health messages about this modifiable risk factor for breast cancer is now a pressing priority. Little is known about young women’s perceptions about breast cancer and how they respond to information about tobacco smoke as a risk factor for breast cancer. The following aims and questions will expand knowledge about young women as a target audience for health messaging about this risk factor for breast cancer, and guide interventions to promote health-protective behaviours. 23  Aim 1: Describe young women’s attitudes toward information about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer. •  Research Question 1: How important do young women perceive information about smoking and SHS as risk factors for breast cancer?  •  Research Question 2: Among young women who perceive this information to be important, what reasons do they provide?  •  Research Question 3: How interested are young women in information about smoking and SHS as risk factors for breast cancer?  •  Research Question 4: What is the proportion of young women who express interest in information about how to reduce their risk for premenopausal breast cancer?  •  Research Question 5: How important do young women perceive information about reducing their chances of getting breast cancer?  •  Research Question 6: Is there a relationship between level of interest in this risk information related to tobacco exposure and breast cancer, and background factors (age, socioeconomic status, education, current smoking status, current exposure to secondhand smoke, family history of breast cancer)?  Aim 2: Identify predictors of behavioural intent in the motivational phase of the adapted HAPA model. •  Research Question 7: What proportion of young women report intentions to change their exposure to tobacco based on information provided about smoking, SHS, and breast cancer?  •  Research Question 8: Do background factors (i.e., age, socioeconomic status, education, ethnicity, current smoking status, exposure to SHS, family history of breast cancer)  24  predict intention to change tobacco exposure behaviours following receipt of risk information regarding smoking, SHS and breast cancer? Aim 3: Describe young women’s perceived barriers and preferred messaging strategies about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer. •  Research Question 9: What are young women’s perceived barriers to raising awareness about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer?  •  Research Question 10: What do young women identify as preferred messaging strategies to raise awareness about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer?  This is an exploratory study examining factors which characterize young women as a target audience for health messaging about tobacco-related breast cancer risk. This issue has been minimally investigated among young women in Canada (Bottorff et al., 2010).  25  3 3.1  METHODS Study Design This investigation used a cross-sectional, descriptive design using an online self-report  questionnaire. Ethical approval for research involving human participants was obtained from the Office of Research Services at the University of British Columbia. This study was a secondary analysis of a previously collected survey data. The purpose of the original study was to survey young women to validate and extend findings from a focus group study regarding young women’s level of interest in information about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer. The survey provided a useful data set to meet the requirement of a master’s thesis, and provided continuity as this writer was involved in the development of the original survey as part of an undergraduate research internship. 3.2  The Smoking and Breast Cancer Messages for Young Women Survey Development of the ‘Smoking and Breast Cancer Messages for Young Women’ survey  (Appendix A) was guided by a comprehensive review of previous empirical and theoretical work in this area as well as by previously developed instruments [i.e., 2007 Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (Statistics Canada, 2007b), 2007 Canadian Community Health Survey (Statistics Canada, 2007a), 2004 BC Youth Survey on Smoking and Health II (Johnson et al., 2004), The University of Waterloo Tobacco Use Survey (2004), Parent Action on Drugs ‘Check It Out’ survey (2006) (Parent Action on Drugs, 2006), and DEX focus group questionnaire (Bottorff et al., 2010)]. The primary objectives of the survey were to develop a better understanding of young women as a target audience for messaging regarding the risks of tobacco and breast cancer and develop recommendations for tailored health messages directed at reducing young women’s risk of breast cancer. The 63-item online survey was divided into the  26  categories of: sociodemographics, background factors, importance of risk information, interest in risk information, interest in risk reduction information, intention to reduce tobacco exposure, barriers to raising awareness, and strategies for raising awareness. Depending on skip patterns, participants could answer from 38 – 53 questions. The online data tool used for the survey, SurveyMonkey, was located in the USA and thus subject to the US Patriot Act. Participants’ responses were not be linked to IP addresses; however due to UBC Ethics criteria participants had to agree to conditions of participation and give consent by clicking ‘I accept’. 3.3  Sampling and recruitment procedures A convenience sample of volunteers was recruited for the survey. Young women,  smokers and non-smokers, aged 15-24 were eligible to take part in the survey. This age demographic was selected due to it being the population most at risk for smoking in Canada (Health Canada, 2008), and to ensure the sample included participants representing the differing stages of adolescent and young adult psychosocial development. For the purpose of this study, 15-19 year olds will be referred to as ‘teens’ and 20-24 year olds as ‘young adults’. Letters of introduction (Appendix B) were sent to nine stakeholder organizations identified as addressing tobacco smoke as a risk factor for breast cancer in their programming, explaining the purpose of the survey and expectations of participants, as well as attaching a journal article (Johnson, 2005a) detailing the issue. Stakeholders were asked to assist with recruitment by: a) placing a URL link to the survey be placed on their webpage; and b) distributing an e-mail with the survey’s URL link to their listservs, and/or distribute the link via their organization’s social networking pages (i.e., Facebook, MySpace). The online survey was promoted through media announcements and articles on the project in newsletters (e.g.,  27  Canadian Breast Cancer Network) and magazines targeting teens and young women (e.g., Seventeen, Cosmo Girl), and a webpage for the project. Lastly, participants from a previous qualitative study on the topic (Bottorff et al., 2010) were invited to participate in the online survey and were encouraged to forward the survey’s URL to friends who may be interested in participating. Recruitment of study participants took place from September 2008 – July 2009. One hundred seventy-two participants began the survey, of which there were 131 eligible participants. Data from 10 participants were discarded due to lack of responses. The survey was completed by 121 eligible participants (70% completion rate). There were no incentives provided for participation. 3.4  Measures 3.4.1 Sociodemographic and background factors Sociodemographic factors included age, education level, and ethnicity. The first three  digits of participants’ postal codes (Forward Sortation Area) were collected to track distribution of the sample. Background factors included family history of breast cancer and tobacco exposure. Tobacco exposure included both SHS exposure and smoking behaviour. SHS exposure items assessed frequency of SHS exposure. Participants were asked to identify how often in the past month, excluding their own smoking, they were exposed to SHS; participants could respond every day, almost every day, at least once a week, and at least once a month. Smoking behaviour items measured current smoking status of participants. For the purposes of the current study, current smokers were defined as those who have smoked in the past 30 days and who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in her lifetime. Former smokers are defined as not having smoked in the past 30 days but having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in her lifetime.  28  Never smokers were those who have smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in her lifetime and have not smoked in the past 30 days. Prior to proceeding with the survey, participants were asked to read a page with cancer risk factor information such definitions of modifiable and non-modifiable cancer risk factors. This was done to ensure that participants were provided specific information about tobacco exposure (active smoking and SHS) as a risk factor for breast cancer, and to communicate that this risk factor is a modifiable one in their lives. 3.4.2 Importance of risk information After participants were provided information about tobacco as a risk factor for breast cancer, they were asked to indicate how important this information was to them at this stage in their life. On separate items for smoking and SHS, participants ranked their perceived importance of information on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). If participants responded that SHS information was important to them, they were asked to specify reasons why. Answer options included: I have a relative who has/had breast cancer; I am frequently around other people who smoke; I try to be as healthy as I can; this information supports my choice to avoid exposure to SHS; and, this information supports my choice to reduce my exposure to SHS. Similarly, if participants responded that information about smoking as a risk factor was important to them, they were asked to specify reasons why. Answer options included: I have a relative who has/had breast cancer; I smoke cigarettes; I try to be as healthy as I can; this information supports my choice not to smoke; and, this information supports my choice to reduce my smoking.  29  3.4.3 Interest in risk information Interest in tobacco risk information was measured by two items. Participants were asked to indicate how interested they would be in learning about the relationship between SHS and early breast cancer on a scale of 1 (not at all interested) to 5 (very interested). Using the same response scale, participants were asked to indicate how interested they would be in learning more about the relationship between smoking and early breast cancer. 3.4.4 Interest in risk reduction information Participant interest in risk reduction behaviour5 was measured by the following four items. Participants were asked ‘if we were able to show you easy and effective ways to eliminate or reduce your exposure to SHS, and which would reduce your risk for early breast cancer, would you be interested in having this information?’ Similarly, participants were asked ‘if we were able to show you easy and effective ways to quit or reduce your smoking, and which would reduce your risk for early breast cancer, would you be interested in having this information?’ Answer options to both questions was ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Thirdly, using a 5-point response scale (1= not at all important to 5 =very important) participants were asked to indicate how important it was to them to have specific information about these risk factors (smoking and SHS) for breast cancer. Lastly, participants were asked to rate how important they think it is for young women their age to know about how to reduce their chance of getting breast cancer. They responded on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). 3.4.5 Intention to reduce tobacco exposure Intention to reduce tobacco exposure was measured for both smoking and SHS. The question to assess intent to reduce SHS exposure was as follows: ‘Recent studies have shown  5  Risk reduction behavior is defined as quitting/reducing cigarette smoking, and eliminating/reducing exposure to secondhand smoke.  30  that about 20% of new early breast cancer cases every year in Canada are related to SHS, and that exposure to SHS early in life may put you at higher risk for developing early breast cancer. Would having this information make you consider reducing your exposure to SHS?’ Response options were ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ The question to assess intent to reduce smoking exposure was: ‘Recent studies have shown that about 25% of new early breast cancer cases every year in Canada can be attributed to smoking, and that smoking early in life may put you at higher risk for developing early breast cancer. Would having this information make you consider changing your smoking behaviours?’ Response options were ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ 3.4.6 Barriers to raising awareness Participants were asked to identify barriers to raising awareness about the relationship between smoking, SHS, and premenopausal breast cancer by selecting any statements which applied to them. Options included: ‘there’s too much negativity and exaggeration in these kinds of campaigns’, young women in my age group don’t think about the “long term”’, ‘there are more important things to be concerned about like school, my social life, and my future’, and ‘breast cancer campaigns are not interesting to young women of my age’. 3.4.7 Strategies for raising awareness Participants were asked to rate the effectiveness of each of the following in raising awareness about the link between tobacco exposure and breast cancer: hearing about it from teachers, using TV ads, using celebrity endorsements, and hearing about it from a breast cancer survivor. A 5-point Likert scale (1=“not at all effective” to 5= “very effective”) was used. There was an open-ended question for women to specify any other ways they deemed effective or ineffective.  31  3.5  Analysis All analyses for this study were conducted using SPSS Version 18.0 (Predictive Analysis  Software [PASW], 2009). Prior to data analysis, univariate descriptive statistics was used to screen the data and ensure values were in the expected range. Due to the sample size (n=121), probability of error for all analyses was set at p <.05. Missing numbers were excluded from the analysis. For the purposes of analysis, respondent age was collapsed into two groups: teens (15-19 years of age) and young adults (20-24 years of age). These age groupings were used to represent differing stages of adolescent and young adult psychosocial development. Data related to ethnicity was re-coded into two groups: ‘majority’ (i.e. Caucasian) and ‘minority’ (i.e., Aboriginal, Korean, Asian, other). Due to low reported numbers, ex-smokers (i.e., have not smoked within past 12 months) were classified as “non smokers”. Lastly, based on median split, response variables were collapsed for analysis into ‘important’ and/or ‘interested’ (i.e. 4, 5) and ‘not important’ and/or ‘not interested’ (i.e., 1, 2, 3). Descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies, percentages, and means) were calculated for the variables in all study research questions. Summary statistics for the distribution of the sociodemographic characteristics and background factors were also calculated. Chi square. Bivariate analyses of categorical data were conducted using chi-square analysis, a nonparametric test. This test is a test of association between categorical variables (Bluman, 2004). It can also be used to test differences between two or more actual samples. In the present study, chi-square was the most appropriate method to analyze dichotomous variables, and was used in all study questions to determine relationships between relevant measures, key sociodemographic variables (i.e., age, education, ethnicity) and background factors (family  32  history of breast cancer, and tobacco exposure behaviours including smoking status, exposure to SHS). A probability of error threshold for these analyses was set at p<0.05.  33  4  RESULTS This chapter provides a report of the major findings. The chapter begins with a  description of the sample characteristics. No findings are provided for the respondents who declared themselves as members of a minority group because the number of individuals in this group was extremely small (n=13). When collapsed into a single minority group no difference was found when compared to the majority sample. Table 2 provides a description of ethnic membership within the sample. Outcomes are detailed for each of the research questions. 4.1  Sample description A total of 172 of participants began the survey. Survey responses were excluded from  three respondents who were males, 21 respondents because they were over 24 years of age, and 27 respondents who only completed the first section of survey. Thus the final sample for analysis includes 121 eligible participants; a 70% completion rate. Postal code data revealed that the majority of participants were from British Columbia (54.5%, n= 66). Remaining participants were from Saskatchewan (15.7%, n=19), Alberta (9.1%, n=11), Ontario (5.8%, n=7), New Brunswick (3.3%, n=4), and Prince Edward Island (1.7%, n=2). Incomplete postal code data resulted in geographic location unable to be determined for 12 participants (9.9%). Participants ranged in age from 15 to 24 years, with the average age of participants being 21 years (SD= 2.21). Less than one third of the sample was in the 15 to 19 year age group. The sample was predominantly Caucasian (87%, n=105). One participant identified as Aboriginal, one as Korean, two as South Asian, and one as South East Asian. Ten participants reported ‘other’ (i.e., Latin American, Black, and Iranian) (8.3%). Ethnicity data was missing for one participant. Most participants had completed some post-secondary education (i.e., college/tech school/university) (57%, n=69), 26% (n=31) of the participants reported completion of post-  34  secondary education, and 17.4% (n=21) of the participants were in high school or had completed high school. With respect to experiences related to breast cancer, 24.8% (n=30) of the participants identified they have a close relative who has been diagnosed with breast cancer. Respondents were also asked about their exposure to tobacco smoke. A large proportion of the participants (44.6%, n=54) reported they have been exposed to SHS at least once a week, 28.9% (n=35) were exposed every day or almost every day, and 26.4% (n=32) were exposed to SHS at least once a month. In relation to smoking status, 38.8% (n=47) of participants identified as current smokers, and 57.8% (n=70) considered themselves non-smokers. A further four participants (3.3%) reported they were ex-smokers. Table 2. Characteristics of the sample (n=121). Characteristic Age 15 to 19 20 to 24 Ethnicity (1 missing) Caucasian Aboriginal Korean South Asian South East Asian Other Education High School Completed some post-secondary Completed post-secondary Family history of breast cancer Yes No SHS Exposure Daily or almost daily Once a week Once a month Smoking status Current smoker Non-smoker Former smoker  N  %  27 94  22.3 77.7  105 1 1 2 1 10  87 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.08 8.3  21 69 31  17.4 57 26  30 91  24.8 75.2  35 54 32  28.9 44.6 26.4  47 70 4  38.8 57.8 3.3  Note: Percentages within categories may not total 100 because of missing data  35  4.2  Findings related to research questions  Aim 1: Describe young women’s attitudes6 toward information about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer. Research Question 1.1: How important do young women perceive information about smoking and SHS as risk factors for breast cancer? Most participants indicated that information about both smoking (61%, n=71) and SHS (67.8%, n=82) as risk factors for breast cancer were important to them at this stage in their life. Young adults were significantly more likely than teens to perceive smoking information as important (χ2= 6.690, n= 117, p=.035). Table 3 indicates that there were no other sociodemographic and/or background factors influencing perceived importance of smoking and SHS risk factor information.  6  Attitudes are defined as: 1) perceived importance of information; 2) interest in information; 3) interest in risk reduction information.  36  Table 3. SHS and smoking information importance related to sociodemographic and background characteristics. Variable  Age 15 to 19 20 to 24 Education High School Some postsecondary Completed postsecondary Smoking status Current smoker Non-smoker SHS exposure Daily or almost daily Once a week Once a month Family history of BC Yes No  SHS info. important N  %  SHS info. not important N %  17 65  14 54  10 29  8 24  14 48  11.5 40  7 21  5.7 17  20  16.5  11  9  28 54  23 45  19 20  16 16.5  24  20  11  9  34 24  28 20  20 8  16.5 6.6  Statistics χ2 (df)  0.367 (1) p=.544 0.264 (2) p=.876  2.362 (1) p=.124  1.347 (2) p=.510  Smoking info. important* N %  Smoking info. not important* N %  14 57  12 49  10 36  8.5 31  11 40  9 34  9 26  8 22  20  17  11  9  28 43  24 37  16 30  13.6 25.6  21  18  13  11  31 19  26 16  21 12  18 10  1.102 (1) p=.294 18 64  15 53  12 27  10 22  Statistics χ2 (df)  6.690 (2) p=.035 1.898 (4) p=.755  2.531 (2) p=.282  .098 (4) p=.999  1.297 (2) p=.523 15 56  13 48  14 32  12 27  * 4 cases missing Note: Percentages within categories may not total 100 because of missing data  Research Question 1.2: Among young women who perceive this information to be important, what reasons do they provide? Secondhand smoke. Of the five reasons presented that related to knowledge about SHS exposure and breast cancer, the most frequently endorsed reason among participants who perceived that the information on SHS and breast cancer was important was ‘I try to be as  37  healthy as I can”, followed by ‘this information supports my choice to avoid exposure to SHS.’ The least endorsed reason was ‘I have a relative who has/had breast cancer.’  Figure 5. Frequency with which participants endorsed reasons for importance of SHS information Factors that predicted endorsement to the above reasons related to perceived importance of SHS related to breast cancer were also explored. Women who reported exposure to SHS (i.e., every day, almost every day, at least once a week) (χ2=23.218, n=117, p=.000) and current smokers (χ2=21.476, n=117, p=.000) were more likely to endorse the reason ‘I am frequently around other people who smoke’ than non-smokers and those exposed to SHS once per month. The reason ‘I try to be as healthy as I can be’ was most likely to be endorsed by participants reporting exposure to SHS (i.e., every day, almost every day, and at least once a week) (χ2=19.983, n=117, p=.001) and non-smokers (χ2=13.155, n=117, p=.001). Women who reported exposure to SHS (χ2=10.939, n=117, p=.027) and non-smokers (χ2=34.307, n=117, p=.000) were more likely to report that ‘this information supports my choice to avoid exposure to  38  SHS.’ The majority (66%) of current smokers reported that this information would not influence their exposure to SHS. Smoking. Of the five reasons presented related to knowledge about active smoking and breast cancer, the most frequently endorsed reason among participants who perceived that the information on smoking and breast cancer was important was ‘I try to be as healthy as I can’ followed by ‘this information supports my choice not to smoke.’ The least endorsed reason was ‘I have a relative who has/had breast cancer.’  Figure 6. Frequency with which participants endorsed reasons for importance of smoking information Factors that predicted endorsement to the presented reasons related to perceived importance of knowing about active smoking and breast cancer were explored. Young women with postsecondary training (i.e., some or completed) (χ2=10.277, n=106, p=.036), women reporting exposure to SHS (χ2=13.072, n=106, p=.011), and non-smokers (χ2=8.560, N=106, p=.014) were more likely than those with a high school education to report that this information is important  39  because ‘I try to be as healthy as I can.’ Young women reporting exposure to SHS (χ2=20.796, n=106, p=.000) and non-smokers (χ2=56.214, n=106, p=.000) report that ‘this information supports my choice not to smoke.’ Research Question 1.3: How interested are young women in information about smoking and SHS as risk factors for breast cancer? Fifty five percent (n=66) of participants reported they were interested in the relationship between SHS exposure and breast cancer. Compared to teens, young adults were more likely to report interest in information about smoking and SHS as risk factors for breast cancer (χ2= 8.521, n=115, p=.014). There were no other sociodemographic and/or background factors that were related to interest in SHS and smoking risk factor information (see Table 4).  40  Table 4. Interest in SHS and smoking breast cancer risk information related to sociodemographic and background characteristics Variable  Age 15 to 19 20 to 24 Education High School Some postsecondary Completed postsecondary Smoking status Current smoker Non-smoker SHS exposure Daily or almost daily Once a week Once a month Family history of BC Yes No  Interest in SHS info. *  No interest in SHS info. * N %  N  %  13 53  11 44.5  13 40  11 33  13 37  11 31  8 30  7 25  16  13  15  13  22 44  18 36  24 29  20 24  20  16.5  15  12  26 20  21 16.5  27 11  22 9  Statistics χ2 (df)  1.295 (2) p=.523 2.082 (4) p=.721  1.874 (2) p=.392  2.961 (4) p=.564  Interest in smoking info. **  No interest in smoking info **  N  %  N  %  9 49  8 43  14 43  12 37  11 31  9.5 27  9 33  8 29  16  14  15  13  22 36  19 31  22 35  19 30  14  12  20  17  24 20  21 17  26 11  22.6 9.5  3.086 (2) p=.214 13 53  11 44.5  17 36  14 30  Statistic s χ2 (df)  8.521 (2) p=.014 2.670 (4) p=.614  .336 (2) p=.845  5.057 (4) p=.282  .482 (2) p=.786 13 45  11 39  15 42  13 36.5  * 2 cases missing ** 6 cases missing Note: Percentages within categories may not total 100 because of missing data  Research Question 1.4: What is the proportion of young women who express interest in information about how to reduce their risk for premenopausal breast cancer? The majority of participants (n=95, 86%) reported that they were interested in learning about easy and effective ways to eliminate or reduce their exposure to SHS and thus reduce their risk for early breast cancer. Forty three percent (n=48) of smokers reported that they were interested in receiving information about ways to quit or reduce their smoking and thus reduce their risk for early breast cancer. 41  Research Question 1.5: How important do young women perceive information about reducing their chances of getting breast cancer? Slightly over half of the participants (56%, n=62) identified that breast cancer risk reduction information was important to them. As indicated in Table 5, young adults were more likely than teens to perceive specific information about reducing the chances of getting breast cancer as important (χ2=13.02, n=110, p=0.001). There were no other significant sociodemographic and/or background factors associated with perceived importance of risk reduction information (see Table 5). Table 5. A comparison of sociodemographic and background characteristics affecting importance of specific information regarding smoking and secondhand smoke as risk factors for breast cancer Variable  Age 15 to 19 20 to 24 Education High School Some postsecondary Completed postSecondary Smoking status Current smoker Non-smoker SHS exposure Daily or almost daily Once a week Once a month Family history of BC Yes No  SHS & smoking info. important * N % 9 53  8 48  SHS & smoking info. not important * N % 11 37  10 34  8 36  7 33  11 25  10 23  18  16  12  11  22 40  20 36  20 28  18 25  18  15  14  11.5  27 17  22 14  21 13  17 11  Statistics χ2 (df) 13.020 (2) p=.001 3.723 (4) p=.445  .658 (2) p=.720 .592 (4) p=.964  2.093 (2) p=.351 12 50  11 45  15 33  13.6 30  * 11 cases missing Note: Percentages within categories may not total 100 because of missing data  42  Participants were also asked to rate how important they think it is for their peers to know about how to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer. Most participants (82%, n= 90) reported that they think this is important. Young adults were more likely than teens to perceive peer knowledge of risk reduction behaviour as important (χ2=12.574, n=110, p=.002). Although not a significant relationship, those with a family history of breast cancer were more likely to report increased importance of peer risk reduction knowledge than those women without a family history of breast cancer (χ2=5.525, n=110, p=.063). Table 6. Sociodemographic and background characteristics affecting perceived importance of peer knowledge of risk reduction techniques Variable  Age 15 to 19 20 to 24 Education High School Some postsecondary Completed postSecondary Smoking status Current smoker Non-smoker SHS exposure Daily or almost daily Once a week Once a month Family history of BC Yes No  Risk reduction info. Important * N % 15 75  12 62  Risk reduction info. not important * N % 5 15  4 12  14 51  13 46  5 10  4.5 9.1  25  23  5  4.5  30 60  27 54.5  12 8  11 7  26  24  6  5.5  38 26  34.5 24  10 4  9 3.6  Statistics χ2 12.574 (2) p=.002 2.836 (4) p=.586  5.121 (2) p=.077 1.308 (4) p=.860  5.525 (2) p=.063 18 72  16 65  9 11  8 10  *11 cases missing Note: Percentages within categories may not total 100 because of missing data  43  Research Question 1.6: Is there a relationship between level of interest in this risk information related to tobacco exposure and breast cancer, and background factors (i.e., age, education, current smoking status, current exposure to SHS, family history of breast cancer)? As indicated in previous research questions, there is a relationship between participant age and most indicators of interest in risk information (i.e., perceived importance and perceived interest in risk information and risk reduction information). There are no overall significant differences between other sociodemographic and/or background factors (i.e., education, current smoking status, SHS exposure, and family history of breast cancer) in level of interest in risk information. Aim 2: Identify predictors of behavioural intent in the motivational phase of the adapted HAPA model Research Question 2.1: What proportion of young women report intentions to change their exposure to tobacco based on information provided about smoking, SHS, and breast cancer? The majority of participants (n=92, 77.3%) identified that information about SHS as a risk factor for breast cancer would lead them to consider reducing their exposure to SHS. Smokers were divided as to whether this information would make lead them consider changing their smoking behaviours, with 43% (n=18) of female smokers reporting that they may consider changing their smoking behaviours after receipt of smoking and breast cancer risk information. Research Question 2.2: Do background factors (i.e., age, education, ethnicity, current smoking status, exposure to SHS, family history of breast cancer) predict intention to change tobacco exposure behaviours following receipt of risk information regarding smoking, SHS and breast cancer?  44  Young women in both age groups indicate that receipt of breast cancer risk information related to smoking would not make them consider changing their smoking behaviours (χ2=9.773, n=115, p=.008). Non-smokers also identified that their smoking behaviours would not change following receipt of this risk information (χ2=19.443, n=115, p=.000). According to chi-square analysis, no other background factors (i.e., education, ethnicity, exposure to SHS, family history of breast cancer) predicted intention to change tobacco exposure behaviours following receipt of risk information. Aim 3: Describe young women’s perceived barriers and preferred messaging strategies about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer. Research Question 3.1: What are young women’s perceived barriers to raising awareness about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer? The frequency of participants who endorsed barriers to messaging is presented in Figure 7. The most frequently endorsed barriers by participants were ‘young women aren’t motivated to find out this information on their own’ and ‘young women in my age group don’t think about the long-term’ followed by ‘there are so many messages already about smoking and SHS.’ Some participants also identified a number of ‘other’ barriers, including: “women my age don’t think they will get breast cancer … it is something older women get”, “information like this doesn’t get released ... or hardly advertised to women”, and “high stress lifestyles make it hard to contemplate or plan for smoking cessation”.  45  Figure 7. Frequency of participants endorsing perceived barriers to tobacco and breast cancer risk messaging Factors that predicted endorsement of each of the listed barriers were also examined. Age. Age was a significant predictor for endorsing a number of the barriers (see Figure 8). Young adults were more likely than teens to endorse the following barriers to messaging: ‘there’s too much negativity and exaggeration in these kinds of campaigns’ (χ2=15.121, n=109, p=.001); ‘young women in my age group don’t think about the long term’ (χ2=15.118, n=109, p=.001); ‘there are more important things to be concerned about like school, my social life, and my future’ (χ2=15.357, n=109, p=.000); ‘young women in my age group aren’t motivated to find out this information on their own’ (χ2=17.417, n=109, p=.000); ‘breast cancer campaigns are not interesting to young women of my age group’ (χ2=16.720, n=109, p= .000); and ‘there are so many messages already about smoking and SHS’ (χ2=16.684, n=109, p=.000).  46  Figure 8. Frequency by age group of participants endorsing perceived barriers to tobacco and breast cancer messaging Smoking status. Current smokers were more likely than non-smokers/ex-smokers to identify ‘there’s too much negativity and exaggeration in these kinds of campaigns’ as a barrier to messaging (χ2=7.849, n=109, p=.020). Research Question 3.2: What do young women identify as preferred messaging strategies to raise awareness about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer? Perceived effectiveness of the presented messaging strategies is presented in Table 7. Messaging strategies rated as most effective by participants were ‘hearing about it from a breast cancer survivor’ and ‘hearing about it from peers.’ Those rated as least effective included ‘using print ads ‘, ‘health warnings on cigarette packages’, and ‘putting information on internet websites.’  47  Table 7. Ratings of the effectiveness of messaging strategies for communicating information about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer Option  Not effective  Somewhat effective  Very effective  Response Count  Hearing about it from teachers Hearing about it from peers Hearing about it from a breast cancer survivor Hearing about it from mothers Including it in a health and education curriculum Using TV ads Using print ads (e.g., brochures & posters) Putting information on internet websites Using messaging campaigns (e.g., tshirts, ribbons, wristbands) Health warnings on cigarette packages Using celebrity endorsements Using social networking sites (i.e., Facebook) Other  (55%) 60 (11%) 12 (2.7%) 3  (30%) 33 (27.5%) 30 (15%) 16  (15%) 16 (61%) 67 (83%) 90  109 109 109  (33%) 36 (26%) 28  (29%) 32 (38.5%) 42  (38%) 41 (36%) 39  109 109  (35%) 38 (57%) 62  (36%) 40 (27.5%) 30  (29%) 32 (16%) 17  110 109  (49%) 54 (35%) 38  (24%) 26 (33%) 36  (27%) 30 (31%) 34  110 108  (54%) 59 (40%) 44 (35%) 38  (21%) 23 (31%) 34 (33%) 36  (25%) 28 (28%) 31 (33%) 36  110 109 110  -  -  -  8  Note: Bolded cells indicate, per strategy, the rating that received the highest number of responses.  Factors predicting perceptions of the effectiveness of messaging strategies were also examined. Age. Young adults were more likely than teens to endorse the following messaging strategies as effective: ‘hearing about it from a breast cancer survivor’ (χ2=13.862, n=109, p=.003); ‘hearing about it from peers’ (χ2=12.024, n= 109, p=.007); ‘hearing about it from teachers’ (χ2=13.590, n=109, p=.004); ‘including it in a health and education curriculum’ (χ2=12.388, n=109, p=.006); ‘hearing about it from mothers’ (χ2=12.864, n=109, p=.005); ‘using TV ads’ (χ2=18.288, n=110, p=.000); ‘using print ads’ (χ2=14.689, n=109, p=.002); ‘putting information on internet websites’ (χ2=17.175, n=110, p=.001); ‘using messaging campaigns’ (χ2=18.973, n=108, p=.000); ‘health warnings on cigarette packages’ (χ2=14.217, n=110, p=.003); ‘using celebrity endorsements’ (χ2=10.451, n=109, p=.015); ‘spreading the word through social networking sites’ (χ2=14.455, n=110, p=.002). 48  Education. Participants who completed post-secondary education and those who had completed some post-secondary education identified ‘hearing about it from peers’ as an effective messaging strategy (χ2=16.098, n=109, p=.013). 4.3  Summary The study sample was described and the findings were presented in this chapter. The  findings highlight young women’s interest in tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer. Perceptions regarding potential barriers to and strategies for messaging that young women described were reported. Key findings from this study, limitations of the study, and recommendations for research, practice and policy will be discussed in the following chapter.  49  5  DISCUSSION This study examined factors that are associated with young women aged 15 to 24 years  old as a target audience for health messaging about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer. Understanding young women’s perceptions of risk information is crucial to creating effective public health campaigns to reduce women’s risk of tobacco-related premenopausal breast cancer. This study extends previous research documenting young women’s response to information about the risk between active smoking and secondhand smoke and premenopausal breast cancer (Bottorff et al., 2010; Haines et al., 2010). The findings indicate that young women perceive this information as important and interesting, and are interested in reducing their risk of tobacco-related breast cancer. Several key findings and limitations are discussed in this chapter. A critique of the selected model is presented. Recommendations for research, practice, and policy are also highlighted. 5.1  Summary of findings Study participants indicated that information about both smoking and SHS as risk factors  for breast cancer were important and of interest to them at this stage in their life. Interest in this information was supported by a desire to stay as healthy as possible. Participants were interested in learning about how to reduce their risk for tobacco-related premenopausal breast cancer. Age was found to be an important factor influencing young women’s perceptions, with young adults holding more favourable attitudes towards information about breast cancer and smoking than teens. Participants identified several potential barriers to messaging (i.e., ‘young women aren’t motivated to find out this information on their own’ and ‘young women in my age group don’t think about the long-term’) and strategies to messaging (i.e., ‘hearing about it from a breast  50  cancer survivor’ and ‘hearing about it from peers’). Selected key findings will be discussed in this chapter. 5.2  The HAPA model The present study was guided by the motivational phase of the HAPA model with the  addition of socio-demographic and background factors (i.e., current smoking status, exposure to SHS, and family history of breast cancer) to account for the influence of these factors on motivation. Overall, the results suggest that background factors examined in this study, except for possible influence of age, do not predict intention to change tobacco exposure behaviours following receipt of risk information. This could be because the background factors utilized in the present secondary analysis were not tested with ideal HAPA-specific measures of outcome expectancy and self-efficacy. The adapted HAPA model used in this study addresses common criticisms of the HAPA model. The model is criticized for neglecting the role that emotion may play in health behaviours, and considering social and environmental influences as cognitions rather than factors directly affecting one’s behaviour. It is recommended that HAPA-specific constructs be included in future research with the aforementioned background factors to assess the adapted model’s potential to enhance our understanding of the motivational stage of health behaviour, and guide efforts to motivate behaviour change. 5.3  Perceived importance of and interest in risk information Most participants indicated that information about both smoking and SHS as risk factors  for breast cancer was important to them at this stage in their life. This finding is supported in previous work by Team Shan, where young women responded to survey questions following a breast cancer public awareness campaign (Team Shan, March 2011). The majority of participants in Team Shan’s campaign also indicated that receiving information and education about their  51  risk for premenopausal breast cancer was important (Bottorff et al., 2010; Team Shan, March 2011). Participants in the present study indicated that this information is important to them because of their desire to be healthy, and therefore the risk information supports efforts to avoid SHS and not to smoke. This interest in staying healthy should be considered when designing health messages. Positive “healthy girl” messages that validate young women’s health promotion efforts and worldview have been found to enforce self efficacy and healthy coping skills (Curbow et al., 2007). Others have recommended that tobacco reduction initiatives for young women also include supportive messages for how to deal with stressors and negative emotions without smoking, reinforcement of refusal skills, and ways to withstand social pressures to be exposed to tobacco (Curbow et al., 2007). The majority of young women in this study also reported that they were interested in the relationship between SHS exposure and breast cancer, and smoking and breast cancer. Expressed interest in this information suggests that there is potential for delivering health messages and programs regarding breast cancer and smoking that are targeted toward young women. Accordingly this represents a potentially important opportunity to reduce risk and decrease the incidence of breast cancer. Participants’ relatively high level of interest in breast cancer and tobacco-related risk factors is likely a direct reflection of the prevalent breast cancer awareness campaigns in North America and the consumerism promoted around this disease (Bottorff et al., 2010). Young women who indicated that this information is neither important nor interesting could be influenced by breast cancer campaigns that may be inconsistent and potentially misleading in communicating information about breast health risks (Haines et al., 2010). Researchers report that this may stem from mixed or conflicting health information which overestimates certain breast cancer risk factors while neglecting others, as well as ambiguous  52  portrayal of risk factors (Atkin et al., 2008; Haines et al., 2010). This inconsistency is thought to contribute to women’s general lack of awareness of the nature of breast cancer risk, lower selfefficacy related to reducing one’s breast cancer risk, and perceptions that messages are irrelevant (Atkin et al., 2008; Peacey, Steptoe, Davisdottir, Baban, & Wardle, 2006).1 Young adults were more likely than teens to perceive risk reduction information as important. This age difference in perceptions may be because breast cancer and its modifiable risk factors (i.e., weight, diet, and physical activity) are usually communicated as distal in nature. Research consistently demonstrates that the salience of messages linking SHS and smoking to future health consequences does not resonate strongly with younger adolescents (Byrne & Mazanov, 2005; Steinberg, 2007). Therefore, messages that emphasize the more immediate effects of tobacco exposure (i.e., early breast cancer, appearance) instead of longer-term effects (i.e., breast cancer in later life, lung cancer) may more effectively engage younger adolescents in attending to prevention messages (Johnson, Jones, & Iverson, 2009; Silk et al., 2006; Volkman & Silk, 2008). 5.4  Importance of and interest in risk reduction Slightly over half of the participants identified that breast cancer risk reduction  information is important to them, with the majority of young women also reporting that they think it is important for their peers to know about how to reduce their chances of getting breast cancer. Most reported that they were interested in having information to reduce their exposure to SHS, and thus reduce their risk for early breast cancer, if the information was presented in a way that gave them options within their current lifestyles. Further, 43% of smokers stated they are interested in information to help them quit/reduce their smoking, if this information was presented in a way that gave them feasible options. These results clearly indicate that young  53  women are receptive to receiving health-related information that provides them with choices (e.g., specific health promotion strategies) so they can make their own decisions ( Johnson et al., 2009). Others have also recommended that such interventions promote self-efficacy by supporting risk-reduction skill building that includes benefits women value (i.e., the new behaviour being marketed should be easy, fun, trendy, and/or fashionable) (Johnson et al., 2009; Volkman & Silk, 2008). Young adults were more likely than teens to perceive risk reduction information as important. This age difference in perceptions may be because breast cancer and its modifiable risk factors (i.e., weight, diet, and physical activity) are usually communicated as distal in nature. Research consistently demonstrates that the salience of messages linking SHS and smoking to future health consequences does not resonate strongly with younger adolescents (Byrne & Mazanov, 2005; Steinberg, 2007). Therefore, messages that emphasize the more immediate effects of tobacco exposure (i.e., early breast cancer, appearance) instead of longer-term effects (i.e., breast cancer in later life, lung cancer) may more effectively engage younger adolescents in attending to prevention messages (Johnson et al., 2009; Silk et al., 2006; Volkman & Silk, 2008). 5.5  Intent to change tobacco exposure The majority of participants identified that receiving information about SHS as a risk  factor for breast cancer may lead them to consider reducing their exposure to SHS. Favourable attitudes toward reducing SHS exposure may be influenced by policies that have extended smoking restrictions to include all public venues, and in doing so have raised community awareness about the health effects of SHS, and made it easier and possibly for more acceptable for people to avoid SHS. However, in some contexts young women may find it difficult to control their exposure to SHS (e.g., if parents smoke in the home). Providing young women with  54  ways to reduce their exposure to SHS (e.g., what to say to smokers) will be important to enhance their self-efficacy and refusal skills. Among current smokers, women were divided as to whether information about tobacco smoke and breast cancer would lead them to consider changing their smoking behaviours, with approximately half of smokers reporting that they may consider changing their smoking behaviours after receipt of smoking and breast cancer risk information. Numerous studies have shown that smokers and non-smokers alike are aware of the health implications of smoking (Tilleczek & Hine, 2004). Typically young women who smoke are less concerned with the longterm health risks of smoking than non-smokers (Nichter, Nichter, Vuckovic, Quintero, & Ritenbaugh, 1997), perhaps influencing the ambivalent responses related to intent to change smoking behaviours. There are protective factors that promote preventative health behaviours among young women who smoke. These include personal competence, life and values orientation, high academic competence and aspirations, and being future oriented (Piko, Luszczynska, Gibbons, & Tekozel, 2005). In Piko et al.’s study (2005) approximately half of the smokers indicated that they may consider changing their smoking behaviours, and these participants may be more likely to possess these protective factors than smokers who reported no intent to change. 5.6  Barriers and strategies to messaging 5.6.1 Barriers The most frequently endorsed barriers to increasing awareness among participants about  smoking as a risk factor for early breast cancer were ‘young women aren’t motivated to find out this information on their own’ and ‘young women in my age group don’t think about the longterm’ followed by ‘there are so many messages already about smoking and SHS’. These  55  findings are echoed in Parent Action on Drugs’ ‘Check it Out’ survey of young women regarding lifestyle risk factors for breast cancer (Parent Action on Drugs, October, 2006). Based on findings from the ‘Check it Out’ survey, the authors concluded that messaging campaigns need to utilize modalities that young women already access, such as social media (i.e., Facebook) and television, to ensure they are exposed to the message. Indeed, there is accumulating evidence that utilizing a broad range of communication channels strengthens message dissemination (Johnson et al., 2009). Again, messages promoting the short-term effects of tobacco exposure (i.e., appearance, smell of cigarette smoke) rather than long-term effects may be effective in motivating young women to consider their breast health (Byrne & Mazanov, 2005; Johnson et al., 2009; Steinberg, 2007). Some participants also identified a number of ‘other’ barriers, including: “women my age don’t think they will get breast cancer … it is something older women get”, “information like this doesn’t get released ... or hardly advertised to women”, and “high stress lifestyles make it hard to contemplate or plan for smoking cessation”. The direct involvement of young women in developing health promotion messages and including their voices has shown promising results when developing messages tailored to this population (Bottorff et al., 2010; Parent Action on Drugs, October, 2006; Team Shan, March 2011). As a result, the input of this study’s participants may be helpful in developing age-appropriate messages that will resonate with other young women. Current smokers were more likely than non-smokers/ex-smokers to identify ‘there’s too much negativity and exaggeration in these kinds of campaigns’ as a barrier to messaging. Role expectations and social influence are powerful in promoting or inhibiting behaviour change (McBride, Emmons, & Lipkus, 2003). Smokers may be more committed to their role as a smoker  56  and/or the norm of smoking, and therefore feel a greater sense of obligation to avoid or minimize smoking risk information, thus influencing the uptake of these messages (McBride et al., 2003). However, as Bottorff et al. (2010) found in their focus group study, young women indicated they would be motivated to change their smoking behaviours to protect the health of their friends. Since friends are very important to teens and young women, this may be useful designing messages to motivate changes in smoking behaviours. 5.6.2 Strategies Participants were asked what would be the best way to raise awareness about the links between SHS, smoking, and premenopausal breast cancer. Strategies young women rated most effective to getting the message out were ‘hearing about it from a breast cancer survivor’ and ‘hearing about it from peers’. These findings support previous research, and suggest that these strategies are effective in raising awareness of tobacco as a risk factor for breast cancer (Bottorff et al., 2010; Team Shan, March 2011). Health messaging that represents real women’s stories and images could potentially be helpful for young women who hold misconceptions about breast cancer being a disease of older women, or those women who have difficulty recognizing their risk because of their developmental stage and positioning of health risks as future-oriented (Bottorff et al., 2010; Silk et al., 2006; Team Shan, March 2011). Narratives and images also facilitate message recall and comprehension, and provide identification with characters by creating an emotional response (Niederdeppe et al., 2008). Throughout adolescence and into young adulthood, peers become increasingly important influences in the lives of young women (Steinberg, 2007). Therefore, the positioning of peers as a channel through which to transmit health messages may be helpful. Targeting peer groups with this risk information may ultimately lead to changing tobacco-related behaviour of others and altering tobacco-related norms of the  57  group (Johnson et al., 2009). Interestingly, it was young adults with post-secondary education (i.e., some or completed) who endorsed ‘hearing about it from peers’ as an effective messaging strategy. This perhaps reflects their new social context in which the influence of family members is diminishing, while the role peers play simultaneously becomes more important in these young women’s daily lives. Strategies that young women rated as least effective include ‘using print ads ‘, ‘health warnings on cigarette packages’, and ‘putting information on internet websites’. Young women’s perceived lack of effectiveness of print materials is echoed in research completed in Team Shan’s Breast Cancer Awareness and Education Project (Team Shan, March 2011). Interestingly, young women in Team Shan’s 2011 evaluation project reported that they prefer using interactive internet (i.e., Facebook and other social media sites) over print materials, representing a change from their 2008 survey when print materials were preferred to interactive media. Interactive social media as a modality to connect with others and share information has grown increasingly popular among young women in recent years. As recruitment of this study was conducted in 2008-2009, it can be expected that should this survey be conducted again the use of social media may be rated more favourably by participants as a potentially effective messaging strategy. 5.7  Age There is a relationship between participant age and most indicators of interest in risk  information (i.e., perceived importance and perceived interest in risk information and risk reduction information), as well as barriers and strategies to messaging. As such, it is important to consider age when developing tailored messages that target teens and young adults.  58  While one’s socioemotional networks7 become active during puberty, cognitive control networks8 develop gradually over a longer period of time (Steinberg, 2007). In particular, the prefrontal cortex, an area involved in critical thinking and decision making, does not fully develop until the mid-twenties (Lopez, Schwartz, Prado, Campo, & Pantin, 2008; Steinberg, 2007). Adolescent brain maturation facilitates the acquisition of more sophisticated cognitive and perceptual understanding of adolescent environments (Lopez et al., 2008). As a result, younger adolescents do not develop the ability to inhibit responses in a consistent manner until late adolescence/early adulthood. In particular, when in the presence of peers or in conditions of emotional arousal, the socioemotional network becomes sufficiently activated to diminish the regulatory effectiveness of the cognitive control networks (Steinberg, 2007). This provides a possible explanation for why adolescents are more vulnerable to peer pressure and engage in risk-taking behaviours, such as smoking and SHS exposure, throughout adolescence. Indeed, Lopez et al. (2008) found that adolescents aged 15-18 years old engaged in more risk taking behaviour than those aged 11-14 (Lopez et al., 2008; Steinberg, 2007). Throughout adolescence, teens are developing their ability to engage in decision making, reason and think logically, and process emotional information (Lopez et al., 2008). Researchers have demonstrated that adolescents overestimate the extent their peers’ use substances and engage in risky behaviours, and underestimate consequences to substance abuse, leading to a sense of invulnerability to negative outcomes (Lopez et al., 2008; Steinberg, 2007). Decisions to smoke and/or be exposed to SHS takes place in emotionally charged situations and/or peer pressure environments, further undermining adolescents’ ability to make healthy decisions (Lopez et al., 2008; Steinberg, 2007). Given these neurocognitive and social-ecological risks, it may not be reasonable to expect  7 8  Networks that are sensitive to social and emotional stimuli (Steinberg, 2007). Networks that serve executive functions such as planning, self-regulation, and thinking ahead (Steinberg, 2007).  59  adolescents to make rational decisions about risk behaviours. These developing neurological networks suggest that cognitive messaging to teens may be less effective than to young adults. Social influences such as peers that smoke and parental smoking in the home also strongly influences the decisions of teens and young adults. It is important to consider these social influences when developing health messages, as is discussed later in this paper. The findings of this study provide some directions for developing and disseminating developmentally appropriate messages to young women about their increased risk for premenopausal breast cancer related to tobacco exposure. 5.8  Limitations Recruitment strategies resulted in a convenience sample of 121 eligible participants who  completed the survey. The sample was limited in terms of ethnic, socioeconomic status, and educational diversity, and as such not all levels were well represented. The use of internet-based recruitment and data collection strategies may have been a factor in limiting the diversity of the sample. Media coverage of this study was received at various media outlets in Kelowna, British Columbia, a region in Canada with a predominantly Caucasian, middle-class population. Recruitment ads were distributed by stakeholder agencies with an interest in women’s health related to breast cancer and/or tobacco. Therefore participants may have a vested interest in issues related to the focus of the survey and may not be representative of the average 15-24 year old Canadian female. The server of the online survey data tool used, SurveyMonkey, is located in the USA. UBC privacy policies prohibit collection of identifying information when data is stored out of Canada. Therefore, no identifying information could be collected and incentives for participation were thus limited, likely contributing to the limited response rate.  60  Because of the cross-sectional nature of this study it is not possible to determine whether risk perceptions motivate behavioural expectancies over time (Halpern-Felsher & Rubinstein, 2005). A longitudinal study is needed to examine young women’s behavioural and perceptual changes regarding tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer and to evaluate the effect of these changes in the volition phase. Other limitations of concern are related to constraints in conducting a secondary analysis using an existing data set. A clear constraint of performing secondary analysis is not having control over what questions are asked or how they are posed. Since the online survey was not designed to answer the specific research questions proposed for this study, some variables were not available for analyses. Measures of the HAPA constructs of outcome expectancy and selfefficacy used in this study were not ideal. Lastly, some of the analyses in the present research did not produce large enough sample sizes (i.e., cell sizes greater than five) to produce robust results. As such, data was aggregated for many of the chi-square analyses. Type II errors, whereby an effect may exist but may be too modest to detect with small sample size, may therefore be possible. However, this was an exploratory study and the results contribute to understanding of young women as a target audience for health messaging about tobacco exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer. 5.9  Sex and gender-based analysis Sex and gender both affect women’s and men’s exposure to tobacco. Sex refers to  biological characteristics such as hormones, chromosomes, anatomy, and physiology (Dell & Poole, 2009; Greaves & Hemsig, 2009). Gender refers to the social constructions of, and influences on, what it means to be male or female including roles and relationships, personality  61  traits, attitudes, behaviours, and values (Dell & Poole, 2009; Greaves & Hemsig, 2009). These are fluid concepts influenced by cultural, social, and temporal factors. There is a growing body of evidence that describes gender influences on tobacco behaviours. Psychosocial benefits and functions of smoking differ for males and females. Females often report that they use smoking to manage emotions, suppress appetite, control weight, gain autonomy from parents, and to foster peer acceptance (Alexander, Frohlich, Poland, Haines, & Maule, 2010; Curbow et al., 2007; Greaves, 2007; Seguire & Chalmers, 2000).Women’s SHS exposure patterns are also gendered, with women often being exposed to SHS in the workplace and at home. It is important to understand that multiple determinants of health compound and intersect with sex and gender, and are therefore necessary to understand women’s unique experiences of tobacco behaviour as well as to develop prevention programs and interventions that are gender-sensitive (Bekker, 2003; Nowatski & Grant, 2011). As such, this study uses a gender-based lens to frame implications and recommendations. 5.10 Implications Considerable evidence exists to support gender- and age-sensitive approaches to prevention, treatment, research, and policy (Dell & Poole, 2009). All research, policy, and practice should entail sex- and gender-based analysis to ensure appropriate health care policies and programming, reduce health inequities, and reduce health care expenditures (Nowatski & Grant, 2011). The implications of the study findings for research, policy, and practice will be discussed in the following sections. 5.10.1 Research implications There have been virtually no efforts to develop messaging strategies to raise the awareness of young women about current evidence regarding smoking and SHS exposure as risk  62  factors for premenopausal breast cancer, and about breast health practices (Haines et al., 2010). The findings of this study can be used to guide this work and evaluations of these efforts. The direct involvement of young women in developing health promotion messages and including their voices has shown promising results when developing tailored messages (Bottorff et al., 2010; Parent Action on Drugs, October, 2006; Team Shan, March 2011). There is a need to ensure that interventions promote self-efficacy and highlight how healthy choices can fit into young women’s current lifestyles, including offering specific strategies for how to do so (K. M. Johnson et al., 2009). Evidence demonstrates that a multifaceted approach delivered through numerous information channels will be most effective in disseminating risk reduction messages (Johnson et al., 2009; Lopez et al., 2008; Terre, 2009). It is recommended that further research be undertaken to gain a richer understanding of this target audience for health messaging, including their self interests, motivators, and barriers (Johnson et al., 2009). Qualitative and quantitative research methods are needed to capture the complexity of women’s experiences (Nowatski & Grant, 2011). 5.10.2 Policy and practice implications The findings of this study also have implications for policy and practice. Despite considerable declines in smoking prevalence levels of the general population, smoking has increasingly become concentrated among socially and economically disadvantaged populations (Alexander et al., 2010; Greaves, 2007; Moore, McLellan, Tauras, & Fagan, 2009). This subset of the population includes those with lower education levels, lower income levels, those in working class occupations, and women (Alexander et al., 2010; Moore et al., 2009). Women’s smoking rates are declining at a slower rate than that of men’s, and in some countries the smoking rates among young women have surpassed that of young men (Alexander et al., 2010;  63  Greaves, 2007). Adolescence and young adulthood is a time of exposure to new social influences and life transitions (i.e., starting college/university, working increased hours, new living arrangements), as well as increased smoking uptake among women (Graham, 2009). This developmental period may provide the context for teachable moments, providing an opportune time for promoting health and wellness and to encourage individuals to adopt risk-reducing health behaviours (McBride et al., 2003). Developing policies and practice recommendations to address women’s tobacco exposure behaviours requires an examination of macro-, meso-, and micro-level contexts. These three levels interact and overlap within the context of women’s lives. Macro level refers to broad, social structural influences, including social values and norms; meso level refers to social organizations (i.e., workplace, educational settings) and the interpersonal context; and micro level refers to the individual level influences. 5.10.2.1 Macro and meso-level implications At the macro level, the results of this study contribute to increasing efforts to minimize young women’s exposure to smoking and SHS, and potentially reduce their risk for development of premenopausal breast cancer. Young women indicated that they perceive this risk information as important and interesting, and reported that they are interested in learning how to reduce their risk for developing breast cancer. This suggests that knowledge of this risk factor for breast cancer may enhance young women’s receptivity to tobacco reduction and cessation support. Continued support is needed for broad-based tobacco control policies to provide smoke-free environments to enable young women to reduce their exposure to SHS, and public awareness campaigns about the link between tobacco smoke and breast cancer to encourage others to take action to protect young women from SHS.  64  At the meso level, women must be supported in their efforts to reduce exposure to SHS by supporting smoke-free spaces.. Policies should be developed that ensure integration of young women’s views, while sharing expertise and resources with employee and student groups, unions, community members, and other stakeholder organizations (i.e., women’s health centres) (Greaves, Vallone, & Velicer, 2006; Johnson et al., 2009). Smokers in young women’s social networks also need to be encouraged to avoid exposing young women to SHS. Policies and practice must be aimed at supporting families to develop and enforce home smoking restrictions to reducing/eliminating smoking in the home. Evidence demonstrates that home-based smoke free policies may contribute to smoking reduction and higher rates of smoking cessation among women. Domestic power differentials between men and women may limit women’s agency and ability, particularly that of young women, to control their home environment and the smokers in it (Alexander et al., 2010; Greaves & Jategaonkar, 2006; Moore et al., 2009). Regardless of their smoking status, women are directly affected by male smoking in the home, through exposure to SHS, diversion of income to tobacco purchases, and premature loss of earning power of family members due to tobacco-related illness (Greaves, 2007). As such, men must also be messaged about the potential effect of their tobacco use on women’s breast health. The health warnings on cigarette packages do not contain information about smoking and breast cancer. This may be one important way to raise awareness among all smokers of the importance of protecting young women from SHS. 5.10.2.2 Micro-level implications At the individual level, practitioners can intervene with young women to explore attitudes and beliefs around smoking and its health effects. The influential attributes of peers and groups  65  can be addressed, debunking stereotypes and myths, and reframing attributes (i.e., the “cool smokers”) to more health-conscious messages (i.e., framing non-smokers as being more mature and independent by choosing not to smoke). Ultimately, the aim of interventions at the individual level is to increase young women’s self-efficacy in their ability to change their smoking and protect themselves and others from SHS. Smoking cessation for young women can be achieved at multiple levels. Multiple contexts (i.e., community, school, family, intrapersonal and interpersonal relations) can be addressed by media campaigns, community activities, task forces, and parent education (Lopez et al., 2008). These components address several risk and protective factors for adolescent tobacco use (i.e., efficacy to resist, functional meaning of use, peer influence, norms re: tobacco, and community access), and is beneficial to teen and young adult smoking cessation (Lopez et al., 2008). Smoking cessation programs and services that engage young women directly are also crucial. Evidence demonstrates that young women are receptive to many smoking cessation modalities such as: counselling (i.e., individual, group, telephone); psychoeducational programming (i.e., workshops, print material, self-help booklets) that promote problem solving, stress management, relapse prevention, and problem solving skills; talking to a healthcare provider; and, nicotine replacement therapy (i.e., gum, patch) (Backinger, 2003). It is important to ensure that these methods of smoking cessation be age- and gender-sensitive to be as effective and engaging as possible for teens and young adults. 5.11 Conclusion Smoking and SHS exposure among young women is a significant health concern because it raises risk for developing tobacco-related illness later in life, including breast cancer. While increased tobacco control measures in recent decades have reduced the overall prevalence of  66  smoking and SHS exposure in Canada, rates of SHS exposure among youth are still high. There is a narrowing gap in smoking rates between men and women, and a reversal of traditional smoking trends between girls and boys. Adolescence and young adulthood is a critical period when the majority of tobacco experimentation and uptake occurs. It is important, therefore, to understand young women’s perceptions of smoking and SHS exposure during this critical time period. Because most other established risk factors for breast cancer are not amenable to modification, reducing tobacco exposure may offer one of the few opportunities to prevent and reduce breast cancer incidence. Increasing efforts in research, policy, and practice is crucial for raising awareness among young women about tobacco exposure as a modifiable risk factor for breast cancer. Expressed interest in and perceived importance of information about smoking and SHS as risk factors for breast cancer suggests that there is real potential for effectively delivering health messages and programs that are targeted to reducing exposure to SHS and active smoking in young women to reduce their chances of developing breast cancer.  67  REFERENCES Alexander, S. A. C., Frohlich, K. L., Poland, B. D., Haines, R. J., & Maule, C. (2010). I'm a young student, I'm a girl ... and for some reason they are hard on me for smoking: The role of gender and social context for smoking behaviour. Critical Public Health, 20(3), 323338. Anderson, K. D., Chad, K. E., & Spink, K. S. (2005). Osteoporosis knowledge, beliefs, and practices among adolescent females. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 305-312. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Social cognition models and health beahviour: A structured review. Psychology and Health, 15, 173-189. Atkin, C. K., Smith, S. W., McFeters, C., & Ferguson, V. (2008). A comprehensive analysis of breast cancer news coverage in leading media outlets focusing on environmental risks and prevention. Journal of Health Communication, 13, 3-19. Avis, N. E., Crawford, S., & Manuel, J. (2005). Quality of life among younger women with breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23(15), 3322-3330. Backinger, C. L., Fagan, P., Matthews, E., & Grana, R. (2003). Adolescent and young adult tobacco prevention and cessation: Current status and future directions. Tobacco Control, 12(Suppl 4), 46-53. Barnoya, J., & Glanz, S. A. (2005). Cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke: Nearly as large as smoking. Circulation, 111(20), 2684-2698. Baucom, D. H., Porter, L. S., Kirby, J. S., Gremore, T. M., & Keefe, F. J. (2006). Psychosocial issues confronting young women with breast cancer. Breast Disease, 23(23), 103-113.  68  BC Women's Health Research Network. (2007a). Environmental/secondhand smoke: Our lens on the sex, gender, and diversity issues on this topic. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://www.womenshealthdata.ca/category.aspx?catid=143&rt=2 BC Women's Health Research Network. (2007b). Tobacco: Our lens on the sex, gender, and diversity issues on this topic. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://www.womenshealthdata.ca/category.aspx?catid=143&rt=2 Bekker, M. H. J. (2003). Investigating gender within health research is more than sex disaggregation of data: A multi-facet gender and health model. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 8(2), 231-243. Biener, L., Ji, M., Gilpin, E. A., & Albers, A. B. (2004). The impact of emotional tone, message, and broadcast parameters in youth anti-smoking advertisements. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 259-274. Bloom, J. R., Stewart, S. L., Chang, S., & Banks, P. J. (2004). Then and now: Quality of life of young breast cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 147-160. Bluman, A. G. (2004). Elementary statistics: A step by step approach (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Bottorff, J. L., Johnson, K. C., Brazier, A., Ferrence, R., Kaufman, P., & Pope, M. (2006). Key informant consultation report: Passive and active smoking and opportunities for tobacco control. Unpublished UBC report. Bottorff, J. L., McKeown, S., Carey, J., Haines, R. J., Okoli, C., Johnson, K. C., Easley, J., Ferrence, R., Baillie, L., Ptolemy, E. (2010). Young women's responses to smoking and breast cancer risk information. Health Education Research, 2(4), 668-677.  69  Brennan, P., Buffler, P., Reynolds, P., Wu, A. H., Wichmann, H. E., Agudo, A., Pershagen, G., Jockel, K.H., Benhamou, S., Greenberg, R.S., Merletti, F., Winck, C., Fontham, E.T., Kreuzer, M., Darby, S.C., Forastiere, F., Simonato, L., Boffetta, P. (2004). Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: A pooled analysis of two large studies. International Journal of Cancer, 109(1), 125-131. Byrne, D. G., & Mazanov, J. (2005). Prevention of adolescent smoking: A prospective test of three models of intervention. Journal of Substance Use, 10(6), 363-374. California Environmental Protection Agency. (2005a). Air resources board proposed identification of environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant. Retrieved November 18, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking California Environmental Protection Agency. (2005b). Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Retrieved December 13, 2009 from http://oehha.ca.gov/air/environmental_tobacco/2005etsfinal.html Canadian Cancer Society. (2007). Canadian cancer statistics 2007. Retrieved December 13, 2009 from http://www.cancer.ca/ontario/about%20cancer/cancer%20statistics/canadian%20cancer%2 0statistics.aspx?sc_lang=en. Cancer Care Ontario. (2006). Cancer in young adults in Canada. Retrieved November 18, 2009 from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cyac-cjac06/index-eng.php Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Health effects of cigarette smoking. Retrieved November 13, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking  70  Chow, S., & Mullan, B. (2010). Predicting food hygiene. An investigation of social factors and past behaviour in an extended model of the health action process approaach. Appetite, 54, 126-133. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. (2002). Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer- collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58,515 women with breast cancer and 95,067 women without the disease. British Journal of Cancer, 87, 1234-1245. Collishaw, N. E., Boyd, N. F., Cantor, K. P., Hammond, S. K., Johnson, K. C., Millar, J., Millar, A.B., Millar, M., Palmer, J.R., Salmon, A.G., Turcotte, F. (2009). Canadian expert panel on tobacco smoke and breast cancer risk. Toronto, ON: Ontario Tobacco Research Unit. Curbow, B., Bowie, J., Binko, J., Smith, S., Dreyling, E., & McDonnell, K. A. (2007). Adolescent girls' perceptions of smoking risk and protective factors: Implications for message design. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 17(1), 1-28. DeBarr, K. A. (2004). A review of current health education theories. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 2(1), 74-87. Dell, C. A., & Poole, N. (2009). Applying a sex/gender/divesity-based analysis. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from http://www.nationalframework-cadrenational.ca/images/uploads/file/sex-diversity-paperbil.pdf. Evans, W. D., Crankshaw, E., Nimsch, C., Morgan-Lopez, A., Farrelly, M. C., & Allen, J. (2006). Media and secondhand smoke exposure: Results from a national survey. American Journal of Health Behavior, 30(1), 62-71.  71  Fobair, P., Stewart, S. L., Chang, S., D'Onofrio, C., Banks, P. J., & Bloom, J. R. (2006). Body image and sexual problems in young women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 579-594. Ganz, P. A., Greendale, G. A., Petersen, L., Kahn, B., & Bower, J. E. (2003). Breast cancer in younger women: Reproductive and late health effects of treatment. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21(22), 4184-4193. Ganz, P. A., Rowland, J. H., Desmond, K., Meyerowitz, B. E., & Wyatt, G. E. (1998). Life after breast cancer: Understanding women's health-related quality of life and sexual functioning. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 501-504. Gilbert, E. (2005). Contextualising the medical risks of cigarette smoking: Australian young women's perceptions of anti-smoking campaigns. Health, Risk & Society, 7(3), 227-245. Goldman, L. K., & Glantz, S. A. (1998). Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(10), 772-777. Graham, H. (2009). Women and smoking: Understanding socioeconomic influences. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104s, s11-s16. Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15(3), 349-366. Greaves, L. (2007). Gender, equity, and tobacco control. Health Sociology Review, 16, 115-129. Greaves, L., Jategaonkar, N. (2006). Tobacco policies and vulnerable girls and women: Toward a framework for gender sensitive policy development. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(1), 57-65.  72  Greaves, L., Vallone, D., Velicer, W. (2006). Special effects: Tobacco policies and low socioeconomic status girls and women. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 60, 1-2. Greaves, L. J., Hemsig, N. J. (2009). Sex, gender, and secondhand smoke policies. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 37(2s), 131-137. Haines, R. J., Bottorff, J. L., McKeown, S., Ptolemy, E., Carey, J., & Sullivan, K. (2010). Breast cancer messaging for younger women: Gender, femininity, and risk. Qualitative Health Research, 20(6), 731-742. Halpern-Felsher, B. L., & Rubinstein, M. L. (2005). Clear the air: Adolescents' perceptions of the risks associated with secondhand smoke. Preventative Medicine, 41, 16-22. Hammond, D. (2005). Smoking behaviour among young adults: Beyond youth prevention. Tobacco Control, 14, 181-185. Health Canada. (2006). Health Canada secondhand smoke youth campaign. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/camp/shs-youth-jeuneseng.php. Health Canada. (2008). Canadian tobacco use monitoring survey 2008. Retrieved January 21, 2010 from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/ctumsesutc_2008-eng.php Hecht, S. S. (2002). Tobacco smoke carcinogens and breast cancer. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 39(2-3), 119-126. Hoffman, M., & Hecht, S. S. (1989). Advances in tobacco carcinogenesis. In P. Grover (Ed.), Handbook of experimental pharmacology (pp. 63-102). New York, New York: Springer Verlag.  73  Innes, K. E., & Byers, T. E. (2001). Smoking during pregnancy and breast cancer risk in very young women. Cancer Causes and Control, 12, 179-185. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2004). IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking (No. 83). Retrieved September 3, 2009 from http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf. Jaakkola, M., Plipari, R., Jaakkola, N., & Jaakkola, J. (2003). Environmental tobacco smoke and adult-onset asthma: A population-based incident case-control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(12), 2055-2060. Johnson, J. L., Tucker, R. S., Ratner, P. A., Bottorff, J. L., Prkachin, K. M., & Shoveller, J. A. (2004). Sociodemographic correlates of cigarette smoking among high school students: Results from the British Columbia youth survey on smoking and health. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 268-271. Johnson, K. C. (2005). Accumulating evidence on passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk. International Journal of Cancer, 117, 619-628. Johnson, K. M., Jones, S. C., & Iverson, D. (2009). Guidelines for the development of social marketing programmes for sun protection among adolescents and young adults. Public Health, 123, 6-10. Kaplan, M. S., & Weiler, R. E. (1997). Social patterns of smoking behavior: Trends and practice implications. Health and Social Work, 22(1), 47-52. Kelsey, J. L. (1993). Breast cancer epidemiology: Summary and future directions. Epidemiological Review, 15, 745-746.  74  Kennedy, G. E., & Bero, L. A. (1999). Print media coverage of research on passive smoking. Tobacco Control, 8, 254-260. Kroenke, C. H., Rosner, B., Chen, W. Y., Kawachi, I., Colditz, G. A., & Holmes, M. D. (2004). Functional impact of breast cancer by age of diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(10), 1849-1856. Kurtz, M. E., Kurtz, J. C., Johnson, S. M., & Copper, W. (2001). Sources of information on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke among African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 458-464. Lantz, P. M., Jacobson, P. D., Warner, K. E., Wasserman, J., Pollack, H. A., Berson, J., Ahlstrom, A. (2000). Investing in youth tobacco control: A reivew of smoking prevention and control strategies. Tobacco Control, 9, 47-63. Lash, T. L., & Aschengrau, A. (1999). Active and passive cigarette smoking and the occurence of breast cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology, 149(1), 5-12. Leatherdale, S. T., Smith, P., & Ahmed, R. (2008). Youth exposure to smoking in the home and cars: How often does it happen and what do youth think about it? Tobacco Control, 17, 8692. Leung, G. M., Chan, S. S. C., Johnston, J. M., Chan, S. K. K., Woo, P. P. S., Chi, I., Lam, T.H. (2007). Effectiveness of an elderly smoking cessation counselling training program for social workers: A longitudinal study. Chest, 131(4), 1157-1165. Li, C., Unger, J. B., Schuster, D., Rohrbach, L. A., Howard-Pitney, B., & Norman, G. (2003). Youths' exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS): Associations with health beliefs and social pressure. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 39-53.  75  Lippke, S., & Zieglemann, J. P. (2008). Theory-based health behavior change: Developing, testing, and applying theories for evidence-based interventions. Applied Psychology, 57(4), 698-716. Lopez, B., Schwartz, S. J., Prado, G., Campo, A. E., & Pantin, H. (2008). Adolescent neurological development and its implications for adolescent substance use prevention. Jounral of Primary Prevention, 29(5), 35. Luke, D., Allen, P., Arian, G., Crawford, M., Headen, S., Spigner, A.C., Tassler, P., Ureda, J. (2001). Teens' images of smoking and smokers. Public Health Reports, 116(Suppl 1), 194202. Maunsell, E., Drolet, M., Brisson, J., Brisson, C., Masse, B., & Deschenes, L. (2004). Work situation after breast cancer: Results from a population-based study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96(24), 1813-1822. McBride, C. M., Emmons, K. M., & Lipkus, I. M. (2003). Understanding the potential of teachable moments: The case of smoking cessation. Health Education Research, 18(2), 156-170. McBride, C. M., Puleo, E., Pollak, K. I., Clipp, E. C., Woolford, S., & Emmons, K. M. (2008). Understanding the role of cancer worry in creating a 'teachable moment' for multiple risk factor reduction. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 791-800. Mehrotra, P., Noar, S. M., Zimmerman, R. S., & Palmgreen, P. (2009). Demographic and personality factors as predictors of HIV/STD partner-specific risk perceptions: Implications for interventions. AIDS Prevention and Intervention, 21(1), 39-54.  76  Montazeri, A. (2008). Health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients: A bibliographic review of the literature from 1974-2007. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Cancer Research, 27(32), 1-31. Moore, R., McLellan, D. L., Tauras, J. A., & Fagan, P. (2009). Securing the health of disadvantaged women: A critical investigation of tobacco-control policy effects on women worldwide. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 37(2), 117-120. Mor, V., Allen, S., & Malin, M. (1994). The psychosocial impact of cancer on older versus younger patients and their families. Cancer, 74, 2118-2127. Morabia, A. (2002). Smoking (active and passive) and breast cancer: Epidemiologic evidence up to June 2001. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 39, 89-95. Nichter, M., Nichter, M., Vuckovic, N., Quintero, G., & Ritenbaugh, C. (1997). Smoking experimentation and initiation among adolescent girls. Tobacco Control, 6, 285-295. Niederdeppe, J., Fiore, M. C., & Smith, S. S. (2008). Smoking-cessation media campaigns and their effectiveness among socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged populations. American Journal of Public Health, 98(5), 916-924. Nowatski, N., & Grant, K. R. (2011). Sex is not enough: The need for gender-based analysis in health research. Health Care for Women International, 32, 263-277. Okasha, M., McCarron, P., Gunnell, D., & Smith, G. D. (2003). Exposures in childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood and breast cancer risk: A systematic review of the literature. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 78, 223-276. Parent Action on Drugs. (October, 2006). Check it out: An assessment of young women's interest in and knowledge of the impact of alcohol, nutrition, and physical activity on breast health. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from  77  http://www.parentactionondrugs.org/pdf/Check%20It%20Out%20Project%20Report%20Fi nal.pdf. Partridge, A. H., Gelber, S., Peppercorn, J., Sampson, E., Knudsen, K., Laufer, M., Rosenberg, R., Przypyszny, M., Rein, A., Winer, E.P. (2004). Web-based survey of fertility issues in young women with breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(20), 4174-4183. Peacey, V., Steptoe, A., Davisdottir, S., Baban, A., & Wardle, J. (2006). Low levels of breast cancer risk awareness in young women: An international survey. European Journal of Cancer, 42, 2585-2589. Pechmann, C., Zhao, G., Goldberg, M. E., & Thomas Reibling, E. (2003). What to convey in antismoking advertisements for adolescents: The use of protection motivation theory to identify effective message themes. Journal of Marketing, 67, 1-18. Peters, R. J., Kelder, S. H., Prokohorov, A., Amos, C., Yacoubian, G. S., Agurcia, C.A., Murray, N., Shegog, R. (2005). The relationship between perceived youth exposure to anti-smoking advertisements: How perceptions differ by race. Journal of Drug Education, 35(1), 47-58. Peters, R. J., Kelder, S. H., Prokohorov, A., Springer, A. E., Yacoubian, G. S., Agurcia, C.A., Amos, C. (2006). The relationship between perceived exposure to promotional smoking messages and smoking status among high school students. The American Journal on Addictions, 15, 387-391. Piko, B. F., Luszczynska, A., Gibbons, F. X., & Tekozel, M. (2005). A culture-based study of person and social influences of adolescent smoking. European Journal of Public Health, 15(4), 393-398.  78  Rhodes, N., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., Eno, C. A., & Monahan, J. L. (2009). The content of cigarette counter-advertising: Are perceived functions of smoking addressed? Journal of Health Communication, 14, 658-673. Sabbane, L. I., Lowrey, T. M., & Chebat, J. (2009). The effectiveness of cigarette warning labels on nonsmoking adolescents. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43(2), 332-345. Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perception. Risk Analysis, 13(4), 413-420. Schick, S., & Glanz, S. A. (2006). Sidestream cigarette smoke toxicity increases with aging and exposure duration. Tobacco Control, 15, 424-429. Schulz, B., Sniehotta, F. F., Mallach, N., Wiedemann, A. U., & Schwarzer, R. (2009). Predicting transitions from preintentional, intentional, and actional stages of change. Health Education Research, 24(1), 64-75. Schwarzer, R. (2008a). Modeling health behaviour change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(1), 1-29. Schwarzer, R. (2008b). Response: Some burning issues in research on health behavior change. Applied Psychology, 57(1), 84-93. Schwarzer, R., Sniehotta, F. F., Lippke, S., Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., Schuz, B., et al. (2003). On the assessment and analysis of variables in the health action process approach: Conducting an investigation. Retrieved September 30, 2010 from http://web.fuberlin.de/gesund/hapa_web.pdf. Seguire, M., & Chalmers, K. I. (2000). Late adolescent female smoking. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1422-1429.  79  Shadel, W. G., Fryer, C. S., & Tharp-Taylor, S. (2009). Uncovering the most effective active ingredients of antismoking public service announcements: The role of actor and message characteristics. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 11(5), 547-552. Silk, K., Bigsby, E., Volkman, J., Kingsley, C., Atkin, C., Ferrara, M., Goins, L-A. (2006). Formative research on adolescent and adult perceptions of risk factors for breast cancer. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 3124-3136. Smith, S. W., Nazione, S., Laplante, C., Kotowski, M. R., Atkin, C., Skubisz, C. M., Stohl, C. (2009). Topics and sources of memorable breast cancer messages and their impact on prevention and detection behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 14, 293-307. Song, A. V., Glantz, S. A., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2009). Perceptions of secondhand smoke risks predict future adolescent smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Helath, 45, 618625. Statistics Canada. (2007a). 2007 Canadian community health survey. Retrieved September 13, 2009 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080618/dq080618a-eng.htm. Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk taking in adolescence: New perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 55-59. Sutton, S. (2008). How does the health action process approach (HAPA) bridge the intentionbehaviour gap? An examination of the model's causal structure. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(1), 66-74. Team Shan. (March 2011). Evaluation of awareness campaign targeting young women. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from http://www.cpoponline.ca/uploads/5/7/2/0/5720795/team_shan_breast_cancer_awarenesse xecsumapril2011.pdf.  80  Terre, L. (2009). Communicating cancer risk reduction. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 3(5), 362-364. Tilleczek, K. C., & Hine, D. W. (2004). The meaning of smoking as health and social risk in adolescence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021, 175-197. Unger, J. B., Boley Cruz, T., Schuster, D., Flora, J. A., & Anderson Johnson, C. (2001). Measuring exposure to pro- and anti-tobacco marketing among adolescents: Intercorrelations among measures and associations with smoking status. Journal of Health Communication, 6, 11-29. The University of Waterloo Tobacco Use Survey. (2004). Retrieved July 3, 2007 from http://etd.uwaterloo.ca/etd/jbgiesle2005.pdf. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. Valentich, M. (1994). Social work and the development of a smoke-free society. Social Work, 39(4), 439-450. Volkman, J. E., & Silk, K. J. (2008). Adolescent females and their mothers: Examining perceptions of the environment and breast cancer. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(8), 1180-1189. Weinstein, N. D., Rothman, A. J., & Sutton, S. (1998). Stage theories of health behavior: Conceptual and methodological issues. Health Psychology, 17(3), 290-299. Wenzel, L. B., Fairclough, D. L., Brady, M. J., Cella, D., Garrett, K. M., Kluhsman, B. C., Crane, L.A., Marcus, A.C. (1999). Age-related differences in the quality of life of breast carcinoma patients after treatment. Cancer, 86, 1768-1774.  81  Wiedemann, A. U. (2009). Health behaviour change: Differential effects of planning processes. (Doctor of Philosophy, Berlin University). Retrieved from http://www.diss.fuberlin.de/diss/receive/FUDISS_thesis_000000008978. World Health Organization. (1999). First meeting of the working group on the WHO framework convention on tobacco control: Economics of tobacco control. Geneva, Switzerland. Yankaskas, B. C. (2005). Epidemiology of breast cancer in young women. Breast Disease, 23, 38. Young, E., Leatherdale, S., Sloan, M., Krieger, N., & Barisic, A. (2009). Age of smoking initiation and risk of breast cancer in a sample of Ontario women. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 5(4), 1-7.  82  APPENDICES Appendix A Letter of Introduction  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  Centre for Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Prevention 3333 University Way Kelowna, B.C. V1V 1V7 Tel: 250-807-8627 Fax: 250-807-8090 E-mail: joan.bottorff@ubc.ca  November 3, 2008  Dear ____________: RE: Online survey for young women I am writing to request your organization’s participation in dissemination of an online survey for young women aged 15-24. The purpose of the survey is to understand young women’s information needs regarding breast cancer, smoking, and secondhand smoke. Our research team has identified your organization as one with a stake in young women’s health, and your participation will contribute to increased awareness among young women of tobacco exposure as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer. Exposure to tobacco smoke early in life can carry important risks for breast cancer later on. According to recent studies, approximately 47% of new premenopausal breast cancer cases can be attributed to secondhand and active smoking. Currently there is inadequate information available on how best to effectively create and implement messaging for young women of differing age groups. Tobacco exposure is a modifiable risk factor, which makes this an extremely important and timely issue. The current survey is an opportunity to begin increasing awareness among young women about the development of premenopausal breast cancer related to tobacco exposure. Issues and needs identified by young women in this survey will be used to guide efforts to promote breast health and reduce young women’s risk for breast cancer. The survey results will also help inform health officials and educators about the perspectives of young women. As part of your participation, we would like you to circulate the attached call for participation to the members of your organization. This can be done by putting a link to our survey on your website, and any social networking page that your organization may have (i.e., Facebook,  83  MySpace), as well as distributing an e-mail to your listservs with a link to the survey URL. Please find attached a template for your use in doing this, which can be copied and pasted. For your interest, please find attached an abstract detailing the study background, purpose of the survey, and what is expected of participation. Also attached is a literature review by one of the study investigators, Dr. Kenneth Johnson, on the topic. If you would like an example set of questions used in this survey prior to promoting it to your organization’s members, please contact us. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at the above address, or you can contact the research assistant, Erin Ptolemy, at eptolemy@interchange.ubc.ca or at (250) 807-8072. Thank you for considering this request. Yours truly,  Joan L. Bottorff, PhD, RN, FCAHS Professor and Chair in Health Promotion and Cancer Prevention Director, Centre for Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Prevention  84  Appendix B The ‘Smoking and Breast Cancer Messages for Young Women’ survey  Note: Skip patterns do not appear in print version of survey.  85  1234567896A8BCD9EF896DC8DEE97DE83C8367832D68 8  12345637896AB27536C7DC2B67DE63FA7CCF6736EF6FD6F2D63D96 8 8  D896F8F38D9C689F8367832D68F564893F8CDD6F8D5AD6D85645678F393896A8D9C8CD9EF88 96DC8 8 8  94D8F5E88D3283656D8ECD896A8FD8E89F838F564893F8F5E8F35 8 8 8  389CD8D575D8F38F94D8F5E8ECD858389CD!8 "8#8367832968DFDD68FD897DE838$%"&'8 "8#8E234DC83C898636"E234DC8 8 8   58 "8(5FF5678FD8)*D+F)8FF368F94DE838F38FD86D+F897D8 "8,838AD5AD83896F8F38967D83C896EDC-85F8FD8).CD)8FF368F38F94D838F38FD8CD53E897D8  !F653636326"#$%&"6A33FD67363262DE6F'63265B(263F68236566 9DF6FB63F35)6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  86  6 6 6 *FD52D38+FB8 8 8  ,DC263565B(2656 7B36F'676B2527BC6 BF-2C3.6267596F63F6B27E66 326'F88FD6D'FB73FD67DE6DEC7326232B6FB6DF36F67B2263F66 BFC22E6363265B(26 8 8  /B F528389CD8565FDA8F38F94D89CF85689683656D8ECD838367832D6897DA8$%8F38&'85E8ECD88 5E8D567836AFDA88FD8/65DCE5F838BC5F5E83259804969796896A85E836DC6DA85F86ADCEF96A56788 367832D61E8563C29F53686DDAE8CD9FDA8F38FD85648DFDD68E234567-8ED36A"96A8E234D-896A8CD9EF88 96DC8 8 8  ,3E8/BFC2EB258D8ECD858F94D89C3+529FD8$%" &28256FDE83C838F3832DFD83656D8388 58D89E4DA8F3896EDC83DEF536E893F8ED36A" 96A8E234D-8E234567-8CD9EF896DC-896A838388 F564899CD6DEE8E3A8D8C323FDA8923678367832D6893F8FD85648DFDD68F3938D+3ECD88 96A8C5E4838D9C8CD9EF896DC83C8CDEFE858D8365AD6F5948633A858463838389CD-8E38D9ED8D88 9E836DEF89E83EE5D8D89CD8DC856FDCDEFDA85689F838F564-8E38D9ED8CD9A898FD856EFCF536E89CD88 96A896EDC8D983DEF5368F38FD8DEF8383C8955F8 8 8  *FD'E2D378385E83656D8ECD85E83EFDA8898D8ECD83296839FDA8568FD8/1#896A89E8E88 5E8E5DF8F38/189E8,689CF59C-8FD8/18.9FC53F8#F893E89F3C5F5DE89DEE8F38FD8CD3CAE8388 56FDC6DF8EDC5D8C35ADCE85E8ECD8A3DE863F89E483C8DCE36985AD6F55DCE83C8968563C29F5368F9F88 298D8EDA8F385AD6F5838D8D8ECD832968EDCDCE8CD3CA856325678,.89AACDEEDE838FD88 32FDC8F9F838ED8F389DEE8FD8ECD8F8638366DF53685E829AD8DFDD683C8A9F9896A83C88 32FDC1E8,.89AACDEE8,83833ED8F389CF559FD8568FD8ECD-8386ADCEF96A8F9F83C8CDE36EDE8F38FD88 ECD83DEF536E858D8EF3CDA896A89DEEDA8568FD8/1#8D8EDC5F896A8C5983583C8FD8D88 ECD832968968D836A89F8FD81CD364D832D897D8385E5F8F5E-8548DCD8 8 8  #8A9F983DFDA8C328F5E8ECD858D8EF3CDA85689EE3CA8C3FDFDA832FDC85DE89F8FD8/65DCE5F88 38BC5F5E832598049697968D8563C29F5368D87DF8C328F5E8EFA8257F8D8EDA89795683C823CD88 CDED9C8368367832D61E86ADCEF96A567838FD5C8D9F8C5E4E-8F8368589C3DA88FD88 9C3C59FD865DCE5F83225FFDDE8D8563C29F53683DFDA8568F5E8EFA8298D8EDA83C8FD95678C3EDE88 5F3F8CDD95678968563C29F5368F9F83A85AD6F5838 8 8  05967DE6/F32D378612D2'358385863F8CDD5D8968A5CDF8D6D5F8C3283C89CF559F5368568F5E88 EFA8(3DDC-8D8A38F5648FD8CDEFE838F5E8EFA8589EE5EF85F8ADE57656782DEE97DE8F3856CD9ED88 99CD6DEE893F8F3938D+3ECD896A8CD9EF896DC8132D89CF5596FE829856A896EDC56783DEF536E88 93F8CD9EF896DC856CD9ED8FD5C83CC893F87DFF5678FD8A5ED9ED8 8 8  *FD52D383C89CF559F5368568F5E8ECD85E836F9C896A8389CD8CDD8F385FAC98C328FD8ECD89F88 968F52D88E5283E56783C8C3EDC856A38,838A38AD5AD8F9F8383A854D8F3832D8948F388 FD8ECD89F8989FDC8F52D838589D8F38EF9CF83C8ECD8979568 8 8  ,8389D89683DEF536E83C8ADE5CD8CFDC8563C29F53685F8CDEDF8F38F5E8EFA-83829836F9F86C88 73968B3FF3C89F8&%2"829" 8:&98,8389D896836DC6E893F83C8FCD9F2D6F83C8C57FE89E8988 ;DED9C8E5DF-83829836F9F8FD8;DED9C815DF8,63C29F5368<56D89F8FD8/B805D838;DED9C88 1DC5DE89F8:2'"8&&"8%=88 8 8 8 8 8  87  8 8 8  6 28364'6F6  BFC22E63632653E6A6C8C9D6FD6326CF 32B65CB22D6A33FD66 5467CC2 36.6356886DEC7326F6DE2B537DE63267AF(26CFDE3FD56F'66 7B3C 73FD6D635653E67DE67B2263F6 BFC22E6363265B(2366 8 12 2  12 8 8 8  2  ,89DF8  8 8  ,8AD56D8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  88  8 8 8 8  283872DE2B8 8  2  12  8 9D8  2  12  8 8  >D29D8  8  6 288389F6F8E67B26F63FE76 8  2  8  2  12  8 367DC8F968$%8  12  8 &28  2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12  2  8  12  8  $%8  2  8  8 8  &$8  12 8  8  8  $:8  2  8  &&8  12 8  8  8  $98  2  8  &?8  12 8  8  8  $88  2  8  &'8  12 8  8  8  $=8  3ADC8F968&'8  8  26:3673656326253682(286F'62EC73FD6F67(26CF 8 8  2  @C9AD888  12  8  2  @C9AD8=8  12  8 8  2  @C9AD8$28  12  8  2  @C9AD8$$8  8  8  12  8  2  @C9AD8$&8  8  12  8  2  132D83D7DAFD8E33A65DCE5F8  8  12  8  2  32DFDA83D7DAFD8E33A65DCE5F8  12 12  8232E6;*FF526FD2<6  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  8  8 88  0FDC8BD9ED8ED5C8  8 88  8 8  28387367B26326'B5363B226E356F'6FB6 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  89  F53786CFE26FB6= 6CFE26;3236>?6FB6@<6  8  8 8 8  26?369F6F8E6F6E25CBA26FB528'6/827526C2C96788637367 8  2  32  #3C575698B>5CEF8*9F536EA*3CF8#2DC5968,6A596-8DF5E-8,65FC8  2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 32  86  8 8  5FDA99E5968  8 8  56DED8  8 8  7996DE D 8  8 8  E3CD968  8 8  >555638  8 8  13F8#E5968B5D8F9EF8,6A596-8.945EF965-8.6595-81C58<96496C8  8 8  13F8F9EF8#E5968B5D8923A596-8,6A36DE596-8G5DF692DED-8<93F596C8  8 8  DEF8#E5968BD78#796-8,C96596C8  8 8  #C98  8 8  B948BD78#C596-8(95F596-87929596-813295C8  8 8  <9F568#2DC5968  8 88  0FDC8BD9ED8ED5C8 88  8 8  26A36BB26F6762A2B6F'676+B536%73FD6 8  2  12  *38  8 88  12  8 88  DE8BD9ED8ED5C8  8 8  26C36BB26F6762A2B6F'67D64DE7D617DE6 8  2  12  *38  8 88  12  DE8BD9ED8ED5C8  8 88  8 8  28@38#F6F67(2676C8F526B2873(26F6756A22D6E7DF52E636AB275366 C7DC2B6  2  8 12  *38  12  DE-858E3838BD7823FDC-896F-87C96A23FDCC8  8  88  8 8  90  8  8 8  ,FBB8F"B28D28A82)8 8 8 8  9648383C83C856FDCDEF85683C8ECD-83DDC8D89CD856FDCDEFDA8568CDE36EDE8C328F2D897DA88 :83875D836ED6F8F389CF559FD8 8 8  ,8389D89683DEF536E893F8FD8ECD-8D9ED836F9F86C873968B3FF3C89F8&%2"829" 8:&983C88 53963FF3CH98>3C823CD8563C29F536893F8F5E8F35-8548DCD8 8 8  >3C823CD8563C29F536893F8CD9EF896DC-8D9ED85E5F8FD8969A5968BCD9EF896DC8*DF3C48DE5FD-88 69-83C8FD836781C598395F5368DE5FD89F8367EC593C78 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  91  8  8  &D F5B28F38,2CFDE7DE8,F928 8 8  8 1D36A" 96A8E234D-89E38463689E8123456271289A8F3938B76C183C8D9BB4318B76C1-85E89F8E234DCE88 D+9D896A89F8C5EDE8C32898C65678579CDFFD88 8 8  28364D6326  7536FD36;2DC8ED6FB6FD65F9D<.6F6F'32D62B26F62D F52E66 3F652CFDE7DE65F9233366 6 6 6 6666666623CD8F968988 8 8  6DDC8  36D8  98D8F52DE8  8  8  8  D8F52DE8  983F8  *3F8959D8  8  8  8 888 888 888856E5AD8989C83C83FDC88 8888D5DI8 88856E5AD8E32D36D8DED)E8 8 88832DI8 8883689683FA33C89F538388 88898CDEF9C96F83C89CI8 8  88856E5AD898CDEF9C96FI8  8 88856E5AD8989C83C8F9DC6I8 8  8889F898E8EF383C88 888EDFDCI8 8889F8968D6FC96D8F38988 8885A567I8 8  8889F83C83C49DI8  8 8889FA6D9C83C8E33I8 8  8889F89683FDC8588 889D8E89E8988 88E3567829-89CD69-88 8836DCF-83C8E3CF56788 88DD6FI8 8883FA33CE8E89E8368988 888E5AD9483C8568989C4I8 2  8896DCD8DEDI8BD9ED8ED5C8  8  8  2838$(2B7886;2DC8ED6FB6FD65F9D<6D6326 2D F52E63F652CFDE7DE65F9266 8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 8 8 8 8  2  FDC8A98  8 8  #23EF8DDC8A98  8 8  #F8D9EF836D856898DD48  8 8  #F8D9EF836D8568FD89EF8236F8  8 8 8 8  92  7536FD362B26F66  8  8 8 8  28384DC8ED6AF36F52F8E62A2B567DE6B287B6(53FB5.6EF2567DFD266 5F926D5E26FB6F262(2B6E76FB678F5362(2B6E76 8 12 2  12 8  2  DE 8  8 8  *38  26836BB2632B267D6B253BC3FD5677D5365F9D6C7B233256D6FB6F26 8  2  12  DE 8  2  12 8  8 8  *38  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  93  8  8 8  &D F5B263F6,2CFDE7DE6,F926 8 8  26:369F6565F9D6B253BC32E6D6FB6F26;*2C96788637367 8  2  32  1234DCE89CD89E4DA8F38CDC9568C328E2345678568FD83ED8  2  32 2  32 32  8 8  123456785E893DA8568DCF9568C332E8368  8 8  123456785E8CDEFC5FDA8568FD8CDED6D83836785ACD68  8 88  0FDC8CDEFC5F5368BD9ED8D+956C8 88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  94  8<6  8  8 8  ,F9D8127(FB8 8 8  263697(26F62(2B63B2E6C7B233265F9D.62(2D6FD26FB63F6 8  2  12  DE 8  2  12 8  8 8  *38  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  95  ''56  8  8 8  ,F9D8127(FB8 8 8  26?369F6F8E62B26F62D6F63FF96FB6'B536 88  ''6F'676C7B23326  8 8  26A36BAF36F67D6C7B2332567(26F65F92E6D6FB62D3B268'266 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12  2 2  ,89D83689A89883C898D8E8  8 8  $"%8579CDFFDE8  8 8  :"$%8579CDFFDE8  8 8  $:"&%8579CDFFDE8  8 8  &:"==8579CDFFDE8BDEE8F968%894EC8  8 8  23CD8F968$228B23CD8F968%894EC8  8  26C3697(26F65F92E6C7B23325.62(2D676 8  2  12  DE 8  2  12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  8 8  *38  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  96  ''6D6326 753686E756  8  8 8  ,F9D8127(FB8 8 8  26@36B  BFD73286F67D6C7B233256EF6F65F92627C6E76  8  22  12  DEE8F968$8  2  12  8 8  $8F38%8  88  12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12 8  :8F38$28  8 8  $$8F38&28  8 8  &$8F38?28  8 8  ?$8F38'28  8 8  '$83C823CD8  28364D6326  7536FD3.67  BFD73286F67D6E756EE6F65F9266  C7B2332566 8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12 88  12 8 8 8  2  $8F38&8A9E8  8 8  ?8F38%8A9E8  8 8  :8F38$28A9E8  8 8  $$8F38&28A9E8  8 8  &$8F38&=8A9E8 DDCA98  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  97  8  8 8  ,F9D8127(FB8 8 8  2838/8275265282C36326FD26C732FB63736A2536E25CBA256FB65F9D66 A27(FB6B36DF6 8 12 2  12  2 2  J,892 898636"E234DCJ8  8 8  J,892898CCD6F8E234DCJ8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  98  8  8 8  +FB8EDFD5F92B5E8 8 8  28389F6F8E6F6E2'D26FB528'6D632B56F'6FB6F(2B78865F9D66 A27(FB6 8 12 2  12 2  12  2  8 J,892 898636"E234DCJ8  8 8  J,892 8968D+ "E234DCA3C2DC8E234DCJ8  8 8  J,8928968D+DC52D6F98E234DCJ8  8  26836#F6F63D96F68863B676C7B23326;FB6F32B63FA7CCF6 8  2  12  6D565FD863F8  2  12  8 8  .C39863F8  2  8  12  .C398DE8  2  12 8  BFEC3<65FFD6  8  8 8  6D565FD8DE8  28:364'6FD26F'6FB6A2536'B2DE562B263F6F''2B6F676C7B23326;FB6F32B66 3FA7CCF6 BFEC3<.6F8E6F65F92636 8  8 12 2  12  2 2 2  6D565FD863F8  8 8  .C39863F8  2  8  12  .C398DE8  2  12 8  8  8 8  6D565FD8DE8  2838#F6F63D96F6886A265F9D6;FB65D6F32B63FA7CCF6 27B6'BF6DF6 8 8 8  8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 8 8  2 2 2  8 8 6D565FD863F8  8 8  .C39863F8  8 8  .C398DE8  8 8  6D565FD8DE8  8 8 8 8 8  99  BFEC35<6FD266  8  8 8  8  +FB6ECBB2D365F92B5E6 8 8  28?389F6F8E6F6E2'D26FB528'6D632B56F'6FB6F(2B78865F9D66 A27(FB8 8 12 2  12 2  12  2 2  J,8928968D+DC52D6F98E234DCJ8  8 8  J,89289685CCD79CA39E53698E234DCJ8  8 8  J,892898CD79C8E234DCJ8  8  28A3897(26F62(2B63B2E6FB652E67D63FA7CCF6 C7B233256 8 12 2  12 8 8  2  DE 8  8 8  *38  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  100  BFEC356F32B637D66  8  8 8 8 8 8  26C36/8275265282C367886326F32B63FA7CCF6 8  32 2  32 2  BFEC356F67(262(2B63B2E6FB652E6  2 2  579C53E8  8 8  579CE8  32  8  32  8 8 0FDC8BD9ED8ED5C8  8  1234DDEE8F3938BD78DAE5F8F393-8E6EAE6C8  88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  101  8  8 8  +FB6ECBB2D365F92B5E6 8 8  28@36BB26F652BF586CFD5E2BD6F33D65F9D63D6326D2D36?66 FD356 8 12 2  12 8  2 DE 8  8 8  *38  26836BB26F652BF586CFD5E2BD6F33D65F9D63D6326D2D3686E756 8  2  12  DE 8  2  12 8  8 8  *38  288364D6326  75366FD35.6EE6F653F 65F9D6'FB6736827536:6FB566 A2C7526F62B263BD63F6F36  8 12 2  12 88  2 2  DE 8  8 8  *38  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  102  8  8 8 8 8 8  288369F67D63256D6326  75366FD35.6EE6F653F 65F9D6'FB67368275366 :6FB56A2C7526F62B263BD63F6F36 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  103  8  8 8 8  #2'D3FDG1D958 8 8  (DCD89CD8E32D8AD565F536E838FDC2E8F9F8D858D8E567!8 8 8  H8*7DC2B896DC83CE8D6-83C8646368CD9E36E-8DE8A55AD85F3F836FC383C83CADC8D88 636FC3DA87C3F8298C3AD898F23C8F968968D8D65768B63F896DCC83C82957696F8B96DCC8 H8&7B88CD9EF8C7DC2B8#E38463689E8KCD2D639E98CD9EF896DCL-8F5E8CD9EF896DC83CE85688 32D68D3CD8FD897D838%28 H8*7DC2B8C5E48'7C3FB8#896DC8KC5E489F3CL82982D968389D896856CD9EDA896D838ADD356788 96DC8,F8A3DE863F82D968F9F83858ADD3896DC8 H81'253828C3FDF5D8'7C3FB58567E8F9F8D3D8968A38F38CDAD8FD5C8C5E483896DC8E89E88 35FF5678E23456783C8D9F567898A5DF8C585E8D7DF9DE-8C5FE-896A85CD8 H81'253828C5E48'7C3FB5I8DED89CD8F567E8F9F8D3D8A38F9F8294D85F823CD854D8F9F896DC8588 3C8>3C8D+92D-8E23456785E8EFC3678564DA8F3867896DC-8F863F8DDC36D838E234DE8587DF8 67896DC8 8 8  38<5DEFD89F3CE89CD89DA85FE'7A8268B9D8F38D8967DAC8D9ED8D8968967D83C85DEFD8F388 CDAD83C8C5E489F3CE896A856CD9ED83C8C3FDF5D89F3CE8 38132D8C5E489F3CE83C896DC89CD85DFDFE'7A826896A83C8CD9EF896DC-8FDED856AD!8 "895678983ED8D29D8CD9F5D8389E89A8CD9EF896DC8D3CD82D639ED83C85683F8CD9EFE8 "87DFF56783ADC8 "8D5678D29D8 8 8  7EF89E85F85E863F8DCF9568F9F83858ADD3896DC858389D8C5E489F3CE-8E385F85E863F8DCF9568F9F8588 3856CD9ED83C8C3FDF5D89F3CE83858935A896DC8D89CD856FDCDEFDA856856A56783F8DFDC83C88 63F8463567893F8C5E489F3CE896A8FD83FD6F59856485F896DC83A8967D83C85D893F83C88 "36823A559D8C5E489F3CE8 8 8  ,8389D83DEF536E83C836DC6E893F8F5E8563C29F536-83896836F9F86C873968B3FF3C89F8FD88 /65DCE5F838BC5F5E83259804969796-8&%2"829"8:&983C853963FF3CH98>3C823CD8563C29F53688 93F8F5E8F35-8738F38FD8969A5968BCD9EF896DC8*DF3C48DE5FD-8698 8 8  /82752836F56D85F8F5E85B(2)8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  104  8  8 8  26*FDD2C3FD612322D6&7B861B27536*7DC2B67DE6,2CFDE7DE66 ,F926 8 8  288838,C2D3'C653E2567(265FD6373652CFDE7DE65F9262D  F5B2676A266 B28732E63F67D6DCB2752E6B596'FB627B86AB27536C7DC2B3697(26F627BE67AF366 356A2'FB26 8 12 2  12 8  2  DE 8  8 8  *38  268:369F6  FB37D3656356D'FB73FD63F6F673635653726F'6FB68'26  8  2  12  $8B63F89F898523CF96FC8  2  12  8 8  &8  2  8  12  ?8  8  2  8  12  '8  8  2  8  12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  %8BDC8523CF96FC8  8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  105  8  8 8 8 8 8  288362B267B2676(7B236F'6B275FD566356D'FB73FD67AF3652CFDE7DE65F926 2D F5B267DE6AB27536C7DC2B656 FB37D363F6FD6F2D36C6F'6326'F88FD66 B275FD567 863F6F6;*2C96788637367 8<6 8 32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 8  2 ,89D898CD9F5D8389E83C89A8CD9EF896DC8  8 8  ,8928CD3D6F89C36A83FDC8D3D838E234D8  8 8  ,8FC8F38D89E8D9F89E8,8968  8 8  5E8563C29F5368E3CFE82835D8F38935A8D+3ECD8F38ED36A"96 A8E2 34D8  8 8  5E8563C29F5368E3CFE82835D8F38CDAD828D+3ECD8F38ED36A" 96 A8 E 2 3 4D 8  8 8  8?36BD6F32B6B275FD56 6  8 88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  106  8  8 8  26*FDD2C3FD612322D6&7B861B27536*7DC2B67DE6,2CFDE7DE66 ,F926 8 8  288A38BFD6326FD6F2D6F69DF.6F67D6EF6F6A282(267B266 B287B862D F52E63F652CFDE7DE65F9266 8 12 2  12 2  12 8  2  *36D83C8923EF8636D8  8 8  8 2 12 953C5F8 8 2 12  563C5F8  8  2  8  12  #3F898  288C389F6C6EF6F63D96F6886A262D  8  *D9C8983C898  8 8  636)F84638  F52E63F652CFDE7DE65F926D666  27B56326 8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 8  8 ,)2854D8F38D8D+3EDA823CD8F968,8928638  8 8  ,)2854D8F38D8D +3EDA8F38FD8E92D89236F8  8 8  ,)2854D8F38D8D+3EDA8DEE8F968,8928638  8 8  ,)2863F8ECD8  288@3802C2D3653E2567(265FD637367AF36J6F'6D2627B86AB27536C7DC2B66 ;A2'FB26726<6C752562(2B627B6D6*7D7E767B26B28732E63F652CFDE7DE66 5F92.67DE637362D F5B263F652CFDE7DE65F92627B86D68'2676 36F66 7362B6B596'FB6E2(28F D627B86AB27536C7DC2B36F8E67(D63566 D'FB73FD67926F6CFD5E2B6B2ECD6FB62D F5B263F652CFDE7DE66 5F926 8 12 2  12 2  12 8  2  DE 8  8 8  *38  8 8  ,)2863F8ECD8  28:389F6D32B2532E6F8E6F6A26D6827BDD6FB267AF36326B2873FD5 A2322D652CFDE7DE65F9262D F5B267DE627B86AB27536C7DC2B66 6 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  8  12  2  $8B63F89F89856FDCDEFDAC8  8 8  &8  8 8  ?8  8 8  '8  8 8  %8BDC856FDCDEFDAC8  107  66  8  6 6 0275FD583338 8 8  28:362B267B2676(7B236F'6B275FD566FD6F2D67B26D32B2532E6D66 D'FB73FD67AF3652CFDE7DE65F9267DE6AB27536C7DC2B36C6F'6325266 7 8 32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  863F6F6;*2C96788637367 2  8<6  E63567823CD893F8FD8EF9F5EF5E8E3E8FD8CD95F838FD8C5E48  8 8  ,63C29F536854D8F5E8C35ADE8D+FC9823F59F5368F38EF98998C328ED36A" 96 A8E 2 34D8  8 8  E63567893F8CD9EF896DC896A8ED36A"96A8E234D85E8523CF96F83C898367832D68  8 8  ,63C29F536854D8F5E8294DE8D5678D+3EDA8F38ED36 A"96 A8E 2 34D8ED D 286 3F8 33 8  8 8  32  E6356789E8F38EF98D9F85E8523CF96F8  32  8 0FDC8BD9ED8ED5C8  8  88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  108  8  8 8 8  0275FD583338 8 8  28:382B267B2676(7B236F'6B275FD566FD6F2D67B26DF36D32B2532E6D66 D'FB73FD67AF3652CFDE7DE65F9267DE6AB27536C7DC2B36736B275FD566 7 8 32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 32  863F6F6;*2C96788637367 2  8<6  FDCF56789EDE896DC89698  8 8  1D36A"96A8E234D85E6)F8F9F8EDC53E8  8 8  D8CDED9C85E6)F8EFC3678D6378  8 8  ,F)E823CD868F38D89C36A83FDCE8F9F8E234D8F9683CC893F85F8  8 8  ,63C29F536893F8CD9EF896DC896A8ED36A"96A8E234D85EF8294DE82D83CC5DA8  8 8  E63567893F8CD9EF896DC896A8ED36A"96A8E234D85E8523CF96F83C83ADC832D68  8 88  0FDC8BD9ED8ED5C8 88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  109  8  8 8 8  26*FDD2C3FD612322D6&7B861B27536*7DC2B67DE6,F9D6 8 8  28:836,C2D3'C653E2567(265FD637365F9D676A26B28732E63F67D66 DCB2752E6B596'FB627B86AB27536C7DC2B3697(26F627BE67AF36356A2'FB26 8 12 2  12 8  2  DE 8  8 8  *38  28::389F6  FB37D3656356D'FB73FD63F6F673635653726F'6FB68'26  8  2  12  $8B63F89F898523CF96FC8  2  12 2  12  8 8  &8  8 8  ?8  2  8  12  '8  2  12 8  8  8 8  %8BDC8523CF96FC8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  110  8  8 8 8 8 8  28:382B267B2676(7B236F'6B275FD566356D'FB73FD67AF365F9D67DE66 AB27536C7DC2B656 FB37D363F6FD6F2D36C6F'6326'F88FD6B275FD566 7 8 32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 8  863F6F6;*2C96788637367 2  8<6  ,89D898CD9F5D8389E83C89A8CD9EF896DC8  8 8  ,8E234D8579CDFFDE8  8 8  ,8FC8F38D89E8D9F89E8,8968  8 8  5E8563C29F5368E3CFE82835D863F8F38E 2 3 4 D 8  8 8  5E8563C29F5368E3CFE82835D8F38CDAD828E 2345678  :?36BD6F32B6B275FD56  8 8 8 88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  111  8  8 8 8  26*FDD2C3FD612322D6&7B861B27536*7DC2B67DE6,F9D6 8 8  26:A36BFD6326FD6F2D6F69DF.6F67D6EF6F6A282(265F926 8  2  8  2  12  *36D83C8923EF8636D8  12  953C5F8  2  12 2  12 8  8  2  8  12  563C5F8  8  2  8  12  #3F898  8 8  *D9C8983C898  8 8  636)F84638  26:C364D6627B5632.6EF6F63D96F67B26892863F3336 8  2  12  CD2956898636"E 2 34 DC 8  2  12  8 8  E 2 34 D 82 3C D 8  2  8  12  E234D8FD8E92D89236F8F9F838A38638  8  2  8  12  E 2 34D 8 D E E 8  8  2  8  12  35F8E2345678  2  12 2  12 8  8  8 8  EF9CF8E2345678  8 8  ,)2863F8ECD8  28:@3802C2D3653E2567(265FD63736J6F'6D2627B86AB27536C7DC2B66 ;A2'FB26726<6C752562(2B627B6D6*7D7E76C7D6A26733BA32E63F65F9D.66 7DE637365F9D627B86D68'2676 36F67362B6B596'FB6E2(28F D627B866 AB27536C7DC2B36F8E67(D6356D'FB73FD67926F6CFD5E2B6C7DD66 FB65F9D6A27(FB56 8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 8 8 8 8 8 8  2  DE 8  8 8  *38  8 8  ,)2863F8ECD8  8 8  ,8A36)F8E234D8  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  112  8  8 8 8  28389F6D32B2532E6F8E6F6A26D6827BDD6FB267AF36326B2873FD5 A2322D65F9D67DE627B86AB27536C7DC2B6 8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  12  2  $8B63F89F89856FDCDEFDAC8  8 8  &8  8 8  ?8  8 8  '8  8 8  %8BDC856FDCDEFDAC8  113  66  8  8 8 8  0275FD583338 8 8  28382B267B2676(7B236F'6B275FD56373676D'82DC266FD6F2D66 7B26D32B2532E6D6356D'FB73FD67AF365F9D67DE6AB27536C7DC2B367366 B275FD567 8 32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 32  2  863F6F6;*2C96788637367  8<6  E63567823CD893F8FD8EF9F5EF5E8E3E8FD8CD95F838FD8C5E48  8 8  ,63C29F536854D8F5E8C35ADE8D+FC9823F59F5368F38EF38E2345678  8 8  ,63C29F536893F8CD9EF896DC896A8E23456785E8523CF96F83C898367832D68  8 8  ,63C29F536854D8F5E8294DE8E2345678EDD2863F8338  8 8  E6356789E8F38EF98D9F85E8523CF96F8  8 8 0FDC8BD9ED8ED5C8 88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  114  8  8 8 8  0275FD583338 8 8  28382B267B2676(7B236F'6B275FD563736D'82DC266FD6F2D67B26DF36 D32B2532E6D6356D'FB73FD67AF365F9D67DE6AB27536C7DC2B367366 B275FD567 8 32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 32  2  863F6F6;*2C96788637367  8<6  FDCF56789EDE896DC89698  8 8  123456785E863F8F9F8EDC53E8  8 8  D8CDED9C85E6)F8EFC3678D6378  8 8  ,F)E823CD868F38E234D8F9683CC893F85F8  8 8  ,63C29F536893F8CD9EF896DC896A8E23456785EF8294DE82D83CC5DA8  8 8  ,63C29F536893F8CD9EF896DC896A8E23456785E8523CF96F83C83ADC832D68  8 8 0FDC8BD9ED8ED5C8 88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  115  8  8 8 8  9F6EF626B752677B2D2556F'63568D96 8 8  28838736EF6F65226756A7BB2B563F6B75D677B2D25567FD6FD6F2D66 7AF36326B2873FD5 6A2322D65F9D.652CFDE7DE65F92.67DE627B866 AB27536C7DC2B6;*2C96788637367 8 32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 2  32 32  2  8<6  DCD)E8F338286D79F55F896A8D+977DC9F5368568FDED8456AE838929576E8  8 8  367832D685682897D87C38A36)F8F564893F8FD8J3678FDC2J8  8 8  DCD89CD823CD8523CF96F8F567E8F38D836DC6DA893F854D8E33-828E35985D-896A828FCD8  8 8  BCD9EF896DC8929576E89CD863F856FDCDEF5678F38367832D68382897D8  8 8  367832D685682897D87C389CD6)F823F59FDA8F3856A83F8F5E8563C29F5368368FD5C8368  8 8  DCD89CD8E3829682DEE97DE89CD9A893F8E2 34567896A8ED36 A" 96 A8 E 2 3 4D 8  8 8 0FDC8BD9ED8ED5C8 88  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  116  8  8 8  28:36B6DA2B6F'67  BF7C2567(26A22D652532E6'FB6B75D677B2D25566 7FD6FD6F2D67AF363268D96A2322D65F9D.652CFDE7DE65F92.66 7DE6326B596'FB6AB27536C7DC2B36267B26D32B2532E6D6FB6F DFD67AF366 325267 BF7C2536/827526B73263262''2C3(2D2556F'627C6F'6326'F88FD38  8  8  8  *3F89F898DDF5D8  8  #85FFD8DDF5D8132D9F8DDF5D8  M5FD8DDF5D8  GDC8DDF5D8  888888888888888(D9C567893F85F8C32  8 888FD9DCE8 88(D9C567893F85F8C3288 88DDCE8 88(D9C567893F85F8C3288 88898CD9EF896DC88 888EC53C8 88(D9C567893F85F8C3288 8823FDCE8 888,6A56785F856898D9F88 88896A8DA9F53688 888CC528 8  888/E5678G89AE8 8  888/E5678C56F89AE8BD788 888C3CDE-83EFDCEC8 888.FF5678563C29F53683688 88856FDC6DF8DE5FDE8 888/E56782DEE9756788 888929576E8BD78F"8 888E5CFE-8C536E-88 888C5EF96AEC8 888(D9F89C6567E83688 88579CDFFD89497DE8 888/E5678DDC5F88 88D6A3CED2D6FE8 8881CD9A5678FD83CA88 888FC378E35988 8886DF3C45678E5FDE8BD788 88>9D334-819D-88 8837EC8  6 36BD6F32B6756 8  8  26?369F6EF6F63D963262D2B786 88  A8C65F8E6A26D'FB2E67AF36356B596  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  117  8  8 8 8  28A389F6  FB37D363F6F656363F67(265 2C'C6D'FB73FD6;23365C2D3'C66 B2527BC<67AF3632526B596'7C3FB56;5F9D67DE652CFDE7DE65F92<6'FB66 AB27536C7DC2B66 8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12 8  2  $8B63F89F898523CF96FC8  8 8  &8  8 8  ?8  8 8  '8  8 8  %8BDC8523CF96FC8  28C389F6  FB37D36EF6F63D963656'FB6FD6F2D6FB67263F69DF66 7AF36F63F6B2EC2632B6C7DC256F'6233D6AB27536C7DC2B6 8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12 "8  2  $8B63F89F898523CF96FC8  8 8  &8  8 8  ?8  8 8  '8  8 8  %8BDC8523CF96FC8  28@364'6262B267A8263F65F6F627567DE62''2C3(267563F628D7326FB66 B2EC26FB62D F5B263F652CFDE7DE65F92.67DE6C6F8E6B2EC26FB66 B596'FB627B86AB27536C7DC2B.6F8E6F6A26D32B2532E6D67(D63566 D'FB73FD6 8 12 2  12 2  12 8  2  DE 8  8 8  *38  8 8  ,892863F8DDC8D +3EDA8F38ED36 A" 96 A8 E 2 3 4D 8  28?384'6262B267A8263F65F6F627567DE62''2C3(267563F6F36FB6B2EC266 FB65F9D.67DE6C6F8E6B2EC26FB6B596'FB627B86AB27536C7DC2B.66 F8E6F6A26D32B2532E6D67(D6356D'FB73FD6 8 12 2  12 2  12 8  2  DE 8  8 8  *38  8 8  ,8A36)F8E234D8  8 8 8  118  8  8 8 8  17538 72)8 8 8  *3898D856983DEF536E893F8FD8ECD8 8 8  28?38#E67D52BD632526F253FD567AF36326  F32D37868D96A2322D65F9D66 7DE652CFDE7DE65F92636AB27536C7DC2B67926F67DDF56;D2B(F5<66  8 12 2  12 2  12 2  12 2  12 8  2  $8B63F89F89C8  8 8  &8  8 8  ?8  8 8  '8  8 8  %8BD+FCD2D896+53E83C86DC3EC8  6  ?3645632B267D3D626CF8E6EF6FB67563F6759632526F253FD56C66 F8E682552D6'228D56F'67DD236FB6D2B(F5D25563736F6FB6F32B6FD66 F2D6767(26 8  6  6 26?836736EF6F63D967AF3632682D36F'63565B(23675633336 8  2  12  338367I8  2  12 2  12 8  8 8  338E3CFI8  8 8  7EF8C57FI8  8  ?:36/8275267EE67D67EE3FD786CF2D356F6767(26 8  8 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  119  8  8 8  !F"B28EFD2)8 8 8  7D96F6'FB6 7B3C 73D)6/827526C8C96326"#$%&"6A33FD63F65A36FB65B(236 8 8  ,8389CD856FDCDEFDA85689CF559F56785689833"8FDD36D856FDC5D8368ADD35678EFC9FD75DE8F38C95ED88 99CD6DEE893F8E234567-8ED36A" 96A8E234D-896A8D9C8CD9EF896DC-8D" 29586C873968B3FF3C8 8 8  ,8389D89683DEF536E-836DC6E-83C8322D6FE893F8FD8ECD-83C83A854D898E229C838388 FD8ECD8CDEFE-8D"29586C873968B3FF3C83C898$"&%2"829"8:&988 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8  120  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0072599/manifest

Comment

Related Items