Literature DB >> 10367414

Communication and interpretation of risk.

J R Eiser1.   

Abstract

The 'new genetics' enables people's risk status for many diseases and disorders to be assessed much more accurately than before, yet considerable uncertainty remains over how risk information will be evaluated and acted upon. This paper summarises some of the main themes of psychological research on risk. Risk is traditionally defined in terms of probability. However, people often have difficulty in processing statistical information and may rely instead on simplified decision rules. Decision making under risk is also critically affected by people's subjective assessments of benefits and costs. In the field of genetic risk, such assessments may vary greatly between individuals, reflecting personal and cultural preferences and ethical concerns. The goals of risk communication should, therefore, not be merely the imparting of statistical 'facts' or the reduction of anxiety, but also enabling individuals and their families to make important decisions under conditions of uncertainty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10367414     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a011729

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Med Bull        ISSN: 0007-1420            Impact factor:   4.291


  13 in total

Review 1.  Information processing in the context of genetic risk: implications for genetic-risk communication.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Colin Perrier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Routine screening cranial ultrasound examinations for the prediction of long term neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants.

Authors: 
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.253

3.  The relation between knowledge and concern: A global study of children and COVID-19.

Authors:  Dina L G Borzekowski; Christopher R Lane; Ankit Chandnani; Maya Götz
Journal:  Health Psychol Res       Date:  2021-06-11

4.  Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population.

Authors:  Susan L Davids; Marilyn M Schapira; Timothy L McAuliffe; Ann B Nattinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Impact on parents of HLA-DQ2/DQ8 genotyping in healthy children from coeliac families.

Authors:  Margreet M S Wessels; Sabine L Vriezinga; Sybille Koletzko; Katharina Werkstetter; Gemma Castillejo-De Villasante; Raanan Shamir; Corina Hartman; Hein Putter; Sylvia M van der Pal; Cisca Wijmenga; Enzo Bravi; M Luisa Mearin
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  Development and validation of a melanoma risk score based on pooled data from 16 case-control studies.

Authors:  John R Davies; Yu-mei Chang; D Timothy Bishop; Bruce K Armstrong; Veronique Bataille; Wilma Bergman; Marianne Berwick; Paige M Bracci; J Mark Elwood; Marc S Ernstoff; Adele Green; Nelleke A Gruis; Elizabeth A Holly; Christian Ingvar; Peter A Kanetsky; Margaret R Karagas; Tim K Lee; Loïc Le Marchand; Rona M Mackie; Håkan Olsson; Anne Østerlind; Timothy R Rebbeck; Kristian Reich; Peter Sasieni; Victor Siskind; Anthony J Swerdlow; Linda Titus; Michael S Zens; Andreas Ziegler; Richard P Gallagher; Jennifer H Barrett; Julia Newton-Bishop
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  SARS risk perception, knowledge, precautions, and information sources, the Netherlands.

Authors:  Johannes Brug; Arja R Aro; Anke Oenema; Onno de Zwart; Jan Hendrik Richardus; George D Bishop
Journal:  Emerg Infect Dis       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 6.883

8.  Parental recommendations for population level interventions to support infant and family dietary choices: a qualitative study from the Growing Up in Wales, Environments for Healthy Living (EHL) study.

Authors:  Ashrafunnesa Khanom; Rebecca A Hill; Kelly Morgan; Frances L Rapport; Ronan A Lyons; Sinead Brophy
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 9.  Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Roland Brian Büchter; Dennis Fechtelpeter; Marco Knelangen; Martina Ehrlich; Andreas Waltering
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  The predictors of glucose screening: the contribution of risk perception.

Authors:  Pilar Lavielle; Niels Wacher
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.