Abstract

Sense of coherence (SoC) is the origin of health according to Antonovsky. The link between SoC and risk of cancer has however rarely been assessed. We performed a cohort study of 46,436 women from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer (Karma). Participants answered a SoC-13 questionnaire at recruitment to Karma and were subsequently followed up for incident breast cancer. Multivariate Cox models were used to assess the hazard ratios (HRs) of breast cancer in relation to SoC. We identified 771 incident cases of breast cancer during follow-up (median time: 5.2 years). No association was found between SoC, either as a categorical (strong vs. weak SoC, HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.29) or continuous (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.00-1.17 per standard deviation increase of SoC) variable, and risk of breast cancer. In summary, we found little evidence to support an association between SoC and risk of breast cancer.

Data availability

The datasets analysed during the present study can be shared and are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. More information regarding the data access to KARMA can be found at: [https://karmastudy.org/contact/data-access/]. The data are not publicly available due to Swedish laws.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kejia Hu

    Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6680-8107
  2. Mikael Eriksson

    Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yvonne Wengström

    Department of Neurobiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Kamila Czene

    Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Per Hall

    Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Fang Fang

    Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
    For correspondence
    fang.fang@ki.se
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3310-6456

Funding

Cancerfonden (CAN 2017/322)

  • Fang Fang

Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (2017-00531)

  • Fang Fang

Karolinska Institutet (Karolinska Institutet Senior Researcher Award)

  • Fang Fang

Karolinska Institutet (Strategic Research Area in Epidemiology Award)

  • Fang Fang

China Scholarship Council (201806240005)

  • Kejia Hu

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Belinda Nicolau, McGill University, Canada

Ethics

Human subjects: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Approval was granted by the Regional Ethics Review Board in Stockholm, Sweden (Dnr 2010/958-31/1). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Version history

  1. Received: July 27, 2020
  2. Accepted: November 20, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 23, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 4, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Hu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,031
    views
  • 131
    downloads
  • 2
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Kejia Hu
  2. Mikael Eriksson
  3. Yvonne Wengström
  4. Kamila Czene
  5. Per Hall
  6. Fang Fang
(2020)
Sense of coherence and risk of breast cancer
eLife 9:e61469.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61469

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61469

Further reading

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Xiaoxin Yu, Roger S Zoh ... David B Allison
    Review Article

    We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.

    1. Ecology
    2. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Emilia Johnson, Reuben Sunil Kumar Sharma ... Kimberly Fornace
    Research Article

    Zoonotic disease dynamics in wildlife hosts are rarely quantified at macroecological scales due to the lack of systematic surveys. Non-human primates (NHPs) host Plasmodium knowlesi, a zoonotic malaria of public health concern and the main barrier to malaria elimination in Southeast Asia. Understanding of regional P. knowlesi infection dynamics in wildlife is limited. Here, we systematically assemble reports of NHP P. knowlesi and investigate geographic determinants of prevalence in reservoir species. Meta-analysis of 6322 NHPs from 148 sites reveals that prevalence is heterogeneous across Southeast Asia, with low overall prevalence and high estimates for Malaysian Borneo. We find that regions exhibiting higher prevalence in NHPs overlap with human infection hotspots. In wildlife and humans, parasite transmission is linked to land conversion and fragmentation. By assembling remote sensing data and fitting statistical models to prevalence at multiple spatial scales, we identify novel relationships between P. knowlesi in NHPs and forest fragmentation. This suggests that higher prevalence may be contingent on habitat complexity, which would begin to explain observed geographic variation in parasite burden. These findings address critical gaps in understanding regional P. knowlesi epidemiology and indicate that prevalence in simian reservoirs may be a key spatial driver of human spillover risk.