Literature DB >> 16641074

Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry.

Paul K J Han1, Richard P Moser, William M P Klein.   

Abstract

In this study, we apply the concept of "ambiguity," as developed in the decision theory literature, to an analysis of potential psychological consequences of uncertainty about cancer prevention recommendations. We used Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 2003 data to examine how perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations relates to three other cognitive variables known to influence cancer-protective behavior: perceived cancer preventability, perceived cancer risk, and cancer-related worry. Using logistic regression analyses, we tested several predictions derived from a review of literature on the effects of ambiguity perceptions on decision making, cognitions, and emotions. We found perceived ambiguity to have a strong negative relationship with perceived cancer preventability, consistent with "ambiguity aversion"-a pessimistic bias in the interpretation of ambiguity. Cancer worry moderated this relationship; ambiguity aversion increased with higher levels of worry. At the same time, perceived ambiguity was positively related to both perceived cancer risk and cancer worry. Furthermore, perceived risk partially mediated the relationship between perceived ambiguity and worry. These findings suggest that perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations may have broad and important effects on other health cognitions. We discuss ethical implications of these findings for health communication efforts, and propose a tentative causal model to guide future research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16641074      PMCID: PMC4194067          DOI: 10.1080/10810730600637541

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


  51 in total

1.  Fear, anger, and risk.

Authors:  J S Lerner; D Keltner
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2001-07

2.  A new model of medical decisions: exploring the limits of shared decision making.

Authors:  Simon N Whitney
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2003 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  The mammography screening controversy: who and what is heard in the press?

Authors:  Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sonya Charles
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2003-09

4.  Factors associated with intention to undergo annual prostate cancer screening among African American men in Philadelphia.

Authors:  R E Myers; T A Wolf; L McKee; G McGrory; D Y Burgh; G Nelson; G A Nelson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Conflicting national recommendations and the use of screening mammography: does the physician's recommendation matter?

Authors:  S H Taplin; N Urban; V M Taylor; J Savarino
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  1997 Mar-Apr

Review 6.  Cognitive approaches to emotion and emotional disorders.

Authors:  A Mathews; C MacLeod
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 24.137

7.  Clinical research--what should the public believe?

Authors:  M Angell; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-07-21       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  The evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test.

Authors:  D L Frosch; R M Kaplan; V Felitti
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Why do men refuse or attend population-based screening for prostate cancer?

Authors:  H G Nijs; M L Essink-Bot; H J DeKoning; W J Kirkels; F H Schröder
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  2000-09

10.  The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination.

Authors:  David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Bradford W Hesse; Robert T Croyle; Gordon Willis; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; K V Viswanath; Neil Weinstein; Sara Alden
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct
View more
  52 in total

1.  Cognitive processing variables in breast cancer: worry and distress at the end of treatment.

Authors:  Gema Costa-Requena; Ana Rodríguez; Rosina Fernández; Elisabet Palomera; Francisco L Gil
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Physicians' attitudes about communicating and managing scientific uncertainty differ by perceived ambiguity aversion of their patients.

Authors:  David B Portnoy; Paul K J Han; Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein; Steven B Clauser
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  Decision making and cancer.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2015 Feb-Mar

4.  Heart disease versus cancer: understanding perceptions of population prevalence and personal risk.

Authors:  Jennifer K Scheideler; Jennifer M Taber; Rebecca A Ferrer; Emily G Grenen; William M P Klein
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-06-02

5.  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

Review 6.  Lung transplant referral for individuals with cystic fibrosis: Cystic Fibrosis Foundation consensus guidelines.

Authors:  Kathleen J Ramos; Patrick J Smith; Edward F McKone; Joseph M Pilewski; Amy Lucy; Sarah E Hempstead; Erin Tallarico; Albert Faro; Daniel B Rosenbluth; Alice L Gray; Jordan M Dunitz
Journal:  J Cyst Fibros       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Individual differences in aversion to ambiguity regarding medical tests and treatments: association with cancer screening cognitions.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Andrew E Williams; Amy Haskins; Caitlin Gutheil; F Lee Lucas; William M P Klein; Kathleen M Mazor
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviours in a US population survey.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Richard P Moser; William M P Klein
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Perceived ambiguity, fatalism, and believing cancer is more prevalent than heart disease.

Authors:  William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Kaitlin A Graff; Annette R Kaufman; Paul K J Han
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Using the internet for health-related activities: findings from a national probability sample.

Authors:  Nancy L Atkinson; Sandra L Saperstein; John Pleis
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.