Literature DB >> 10424829

Women's perceptions of breast cancer risk: how you ask matters.

S Woloshin1, L M Schwartz, W C Black, H G Welch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Some studies suggest that women dramatically overestimate the risk of having breast cancer while others conclude that they underestimate it. To understand better how women perceive the chance of getting breast cancer, the authors asked women to estimate the risk in several ways. Each woman's answer was related to her actual risk.
METHODS: Women were randomly selected from a registry of female veterans in New England. A mailed questionnaire asked each woman to estimate her ten-year risk of dying from breast cancer as a number out of 1,000 ("___ in 1,000" perceived risk) and whether this risk was higher than, the same as, or lower than that of an average woman her age (comparative perceived risk). The woman was also asked to compare her risk of dying from breast cancer with her risk of dying from heart disease. Risk-factor data were collected so that each woman's actual risk of breast cancer death could be estimated (actual risk).
RESULTS: 201 women had complete data. The median age of the respondents was 62 years (range 27-80), and 98% were high school graduates. Most women (98%) overestimated the "___ in 1,000" risk of breast cancer death-half by eightfold or more (interquartile range, 4-36-fold overestimates). In contrast, only 10% of these women thought that they were at higher risk than an average woman their age. Most correctly thought that their risk of dying from breast cancer was lower than their risk of dying from heart disease. The women's "____in 1,000" perceived risks of breast cancer death were unrelated to their actual risks and had no significant agreement with an external bench-mark of importantly "high risk" (i.e., met risk criteria for the Tamoxifen primary prevention trial). In contrast, the women's comparative perceptions of being at low, average or high risk were related to actual risks and significantly agreed with the "high risk" benchmark. Most women not at importantly "high risk" correctly classified themselves; however, almost two thirds of "high risk" women misclassified themselves as "average or lower than average risk."
CONCLUSIONS: The method used to elicit perceptions of risk matters. These women's responses to the comparative questions showed that they "knew more" about their actual risks than their open-ended numeric responses suggested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10424829     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  44 in total

Review 1.  The state of women veterans' health research. Results of a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Caroline L Goldzweig; Talene M Balekian; Cony Rolón; Elizabeth M Yano; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Suitable trial designs and cohorts for preventive breast cancer agents.

Authors:  Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Paul E Goss
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Cognitive and Affective Perceptions of Vulnerability as Predictors of Exercise Intentions among People with Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  David B Portnoy; Annette R Kaufman; William M P Klein; Todd A Doyle; Mary de Groot
Journal:  J Risk Res       Date:  2014-01-01

4.  Promoting mammography adherence in underserved women: the telephone coaching adherence study.

Authors:  Vanessa B Sheppard; Judy Huei-yu Wang; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Shiela Harmon Martin; Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza; George Luta
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Black-white differences in risk perceptions of breast cancer survival and screening mammography benefit.

Authors:  David A Haggstrom; Marilyn M Schapira
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Comparison of risk perceptions and beliefs across common chronic diseases.

Authors:  Catharine Wang; Suzanne M O'Neill; Nan Rothrock; Robert Gramling; Ananda Sen; Louise S Acheson; Wendy S Rubinstein; Donald E Nease; Mack T Ruffin
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2008-11-25       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Perception of risk and knowledge of risk factors in women at high risk for stroke.

Authors:  Jennifer L Dearborn; Louise D McCullough
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 8.  How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Nathan F Dieckmann
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 17.737

9.  Effect of format on comprehension of adherence data in chronic disease: A cross-sectional study in HIV.

Authors:  Anita Lyons; Warren B Bilker; Janet Hines; Robert Gross
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-08-04

10.  Changes in psychological distress after cancer genetic counselling: a comparison of affected and unaffected women.

Authors:  A Bish; S Sutton; C Jacobs; S Levene; A Ramirez; S Hodgson
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2002-01-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.