Literature DB >> 14970731

Subjective and objective risk of colorectal cancer (UK).

Kathryn A Robb1, Anne Miles, Jane Wardle.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to see whether individuals who perceive their risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC) as lower than average are found to be at lower risk as determined by findings at flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening.
METHODS: Participants (n = 10,551) were men and women aged 55-64 years from a subset of participants in the UK FS Trial. Self-report questionnaires assessed perceived comparative risk of developing bowel cancer prior to participants being invited to attend FS screening. Objective risk was judged from polyp status during the FS test.
RESULTS: A very modest relationship was found between risk judgments and actual risk with 77% of 'optimists' having negative findings compared to 71% of 'pessimists'. More pessimists (14%) had an adenoma compared to optimists (11%). Compared to pessimists the odds of optimists actually being at lower risk of CRC equaled 0.70 (0.57, 0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that people may have a limited ability to assess their risk of developing CRC. Health professionals should not assume that individuals have an accurate perception of their risk for cancer. Increasing people's ability to accurately perceive their risk may encourage more appropriate cancer preventive behavior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14970731     DOI: 10.1023/B:CACO.0000016567.82368.6c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  6 in total

1.  Perception of colonoscopy benefits: a gap in patient knowledge?

Authors:  Michael Yim; Lynn F Butterly; Martha E Goodrich; Julie E Weiss; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-06

2.  Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Erin Turbitt; Megan C Roberts; Jennifer M Taber; Erika A Waters; Timothy S McNeel; Barbara B Biesecker; William M P Klein
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  Colorectal cancer screening among low-income African Americans in East Harlem: a theoretical approach to understanding barriers and promoters to screening.

Authors:  Catalina Lawsin; Katherine DuHamel; Anthony Weiss; William Rakowski; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.671

4.  The impact of human papillomavirus information on perceived risk of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Laura A V Marlow; Jo Waller; Jane Wardle
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.

Authors:  Rosalind Raine; Sue M Moss; Christian von Wagner; Wendy Atkin; Ines Kralj Hans; Rosemary Howe; Francesca Solmi; Stephen Morris; Nicholas Counsell; Allan Hackshaw; Stephen Halloran; Graham Handley; Richard F Logan; Sandra Rainbow; Steve Smith; Julia Snowball; Helen Seaman; Mary Thomas; Samuel G Smith; Lesley M McGregor; Gemma Vart; Jane Wardle; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Barriers to asymptomatic screening and other STD services for adolescents and young adults: focus group discussions.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Tilson; Victoria Sanchez; Chandra L Ford; Marlene Smurzynski; Peter A Leone; Kimberley K Fox; Kathleen Irwin; William C Miller
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.