Literature DB >> 16720537

Effects of communicating social comparison information on risk perceptions for colorectal cancer.

Isaac M Lipkus1, William M P Klein.   

Abstract

People typically believe their health risks are lower than those of others (i.e., optimistic bias). We sought to increase perceptions of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk among adults aged 50-75 who were nonadherent to fecal occult screening (FOBT). 160 participants were randomized to receive information about the following: (1) general CRC risk factors (control), (2) general and tailored CRC risk factor feedback (absolute risk group), or (3) absolute CRC risk factor feedback plus CRC feedback as to how their total number of risk factors compared with that of others (absolute plus comparative risk group). Primary outcomes were perceived absolute and comparative risks, attitudinal ambivalence toward FOBT, and screening intentions; the secondary outcome was return of a completed FOBT. Participants who were told that they had more than the average number of risk factors believed their comparative CRC risk was higher than that of controls and of participants informed that they did not have more than the average number of risk factors. Perceived absolute risk did not vary by group. Participants who received social comparison risk factor feedback expressed greater intentions to screen via a FOBT than participants who received absolute risk feedback and controls; they also expressed less ambivalence about FOBT screening than controls. Although not statistically significant, participants informed they were at lower comparative risk had the highest proportion of completing an FOBT than any other group. These results suggest that providing social comparison CRC risk factor feedback can effectively reduce optimistic comparative risk perceptions. Contrary to findings of models of health behavior change, being informed that one does not have more than the average number of CRC risk factors, while resulting in lower evaluations of perceived comparative risk, did not result in higher ambivalence toward and lower intentions to screen using FOBT or the lowest rate of screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16720537     DOI: 10.1080/10810730600671870

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


  30 in total

1.  Beneficent persuasion: techniques and ethical guidelines to improve patients' decisions.

Authors:  J S Swindell; Amy L McGuire; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2010 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Application of persuasion and health behavior theories for behavior change counseling: design of the ADAPT (Avoiding Diabetes Thru Action Plan Targeting) program.

Authors:  Jenny J Lin; Devin M Mann
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-07-06

3.  Predictors of perceived susceptibility of breast cancer and changes over time: a mixed modeling approach.

Authors:  Amy McQueen; Paul R Swank; Lori A Bastian; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  An affective booster moderates the effect of gain- and loss-framed messages on behavioral intentions for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein; Laura E Zajac; Stephanie R Land; Bruce S Ling
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2011-08-18

5.  Temporal and social comparative self-assessments of physical health in young, middle-aged, and young-old adults in the MIDUS study.

Authors:  Jerry Suls; Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2021-03-08

Review 6.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

7.  Effects of upward and downward social comparison information on the efficacy of an appearance-based sun protection intervention: a randomized, controlled experiment.

Authors:  Heike I M Mahler; James A Kulik; Meg Gerrard; Frederick X Gibbons
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2010-07-22

8.  Investigating the effects of cancer risk and efficacy perceptions on cancer prevention adherence and intentions.

Authors:  Norman Wong
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2009-03

9.  Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  S B Haga; W T Barry; R Mills; L Svetkey; S Suchindran; H F Willard; G S Ginsburg
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 2.000

10.  What is my cancer risk? How internet-based cancer risk assessment tools communicate individualized risk estimates to the public: content analysis.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Helen W Sullivan; Wendy Nelson; Bradford W Hesse
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.