Literature DB >> 10854449

Why (cancer) risk communication can be hard.

B Fischhoff1.   

Abstract

Effective risk communication uses audience members' time well by providing them with the information that they most need, in a form that they can easily comprehend. Accomplishing this task can be hard because of problems with both the transmitter and the receiver. The former must determine what is most worth saying. The latter must integrate that message with their often fragmentary mental models of the processes creating and controlling the risks. One strategy for improving communication is to use analytic methods for selecting the information to transmit, based on its criticality to recipients' decision making. A second strategy for improving communications is adapting the message to the cognitive processes of its recipients. Together, these strategies can reveal the limits to communication and how best to work within them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10854449     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr        ISSN: 1052-6773


  14 in total

Review 1.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Silvana Unigwe; Glyn Elwyn; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

Review 2.  Managing patients with inexplicable health problems.

Authors:  Baruch Fischhoff; Simon Wessely
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-03-15

3.  Media messages about cancer: what do people understand?

Authors:  Kathleen M Mazor; Josephine Calvi; Rebecca Cowan; Mary E Costanza; Paul K J Han; Sarah M Greene; Laura Saccoccio; Erica Cove; Douglas Roblin; Andrew Williams
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2010

4.  The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Sigrid Piening; Pieter A de Graeff; Sabine M J M Straus; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Peter G M Mol
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Assessing what to address in science communication.

Authors:  Wändi Bruine de Bruin; Ann Bostrom
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  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

7.  "I don't believe it." Acceptance and skepticism of genetic health information among African-American and White smokers.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Linda Ball; Sarah Gehlert
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Knowledge, experiences and attitudes concerning genetics among retinoblastoma survivors and parents.

Authors:  Jessica A Hill; Amal Gedleh; Siwon Lee; Kaitlyn A Hougham; Helen Dimaras
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Cognitive and emotional factors predicting decisional conflict among high-risk breast cancer survivors who receive uninformative BRCA1/2 results.

Authors:  Christine Rini; Suzanne C O'Neill; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Rachel E Goldsmith; Lina Jandorf; Karen Brown; Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  Incorporating ethnicity into genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: the REVEAL study experience.

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; J Scott Roberts; Charmaine D M Royal; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Thomas Obisesan; L Adrienne Cupples; Peter J Whitehouse; Melissa Barber Butson; Erin Linnenbringer; Norman R Relkin; Lindsay Farrer; Robert Cook-Deegan; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.