Literature DB >> 10977287

A qualitative evaluation of the Harvard Cancer Risk Index.

K M Emmons1, S Koch-Weser, K Atwood, L Conboy, R Rudd, G Colditz.   

Abstract

There is an extensive amount of information in the popular press about cancer risk factors. The volume and sometimes contradictory nature of this information makes it difficult for individuals to understand their own level of risk or how one risk factor compares with another. The Harvard Cancer Risk Index (HCRI) was developed by an interdisciplinary working group of epidemiologists and behavioral scientists to educate the public about the major risk factors associated with the 11 most common forms of cancer in the United States. Following the development and validation of the HCRI, we initiated a qualitative research study to obtain initial feedback on the wording and presentation of the index and to elicit information regarding the meaning of risks, perception of cancer, and interpretation of the HCRI results. The results indicated that the HCRI was well received by participants and that they highly regarded the inclusion of information related to the latest risks for cancer and the description of the mechanisms by which these factors impact on risk. Personalization of the risk score helped participants to focus on behaviors that they could change. However, dissatisfaction with the HCRI was noted by some participants because exposures they believed to be important were not included (e.g., poverty, toxic waste, air pollution). Evaluation of the impact of the index on intention to change provided preliminary evidence that this may be an effective toll for helping mobilize individuals toward change across a number of risk factors. Further quantitative evaluation of the HCRI is planned.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10977287     DOI: 10.1080/108107399126904

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Commun        ISSN: 1081-0730


  13 in total

1.  Testing communication strategies to convey genomic concepts using virtual reality technology.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Susan Persky; Cade McCall; Christina Lachance; Andrew C Beall; Jim Blascovich
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2009-06

2.  Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Tom Lehman; Bill Killam; Holly Massett; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Colorectal cancer risk information presented by a nonphysician assistant does not increase screening rates.

Authors:  Thad Wilkins; Ralph A Gillies; Pina Panchal; Mittal Patel; Peter Warren; Robert R Schade
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Reactions to online colorectal cancer risk estimates among a nationally representative sample of adults who have never been screened.

Authors:  Isaac M Lipkus; Constance M Johnson; Sathya Amarasekara; Wei Pan; John A Updegraff
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-11-15

5.  Using an Internet-Based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool to Improve Social-Cognitive Precursors of Physical Activity.

Authors:  Stephanie L Fowler; William M P Klein; Linda Ball; Jaclyn McGuire; Graham A Colditz; Erika A Waters
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Bill Killam; Tom Lehman; Holly Massett; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-03-05

7.  Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Thomas C Lehman; Holly Massett; Simon C Lee; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Juliet A Usher-Smith; Fiona M Walter; Jon D Emery; Aung K Win; Simon J Griffin
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2015-10-13

Review 9.  Review of non-clinical risk models to aid prevention of breast cancer.

Authors:  Kawthar Al-Ajmi; Artitaya Lophatananon; Martin Yuille; William Ollier; Kenneth R Muir
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2018-09-03       Impact factor: 2.506

10.  Engagement in decision-making and patient satisfaction: a qualitative study of older patients' perceptions of dialysis initiation and modality decisions.

Authors:  Keren Ladin; Naomi Lin; Emily Hahn; Gregory Zhang; Susan Koch-Weser; Daniel E Weiner
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 5.992

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.