Literature DB >> 17372241

Perceived ambiguity about screening mammography recommendations: association with future mammography uptake and perceptions.

Paul K J Han1, Sarah C Kobrin, William M P Klein, William W Davis, Michael Stefanek, Steven H Taplin.   

Abstract

Conflicting expert recommendations regarding cancer screening and prevention are growing in number, visibility, and importance, but their impact are not well understood. In this study, we examined the impact of conflicting recommendations about mammography screening on women's mammography behavior and perceptions. We conducted a secondary analysis of longitudinal data from the 1995 Maximizing Mammography Participation Trial, a large randomized interventional trial examining the effectiveness of patient reminders in increasing mammography utilization among women ages 50 to 79. Using the decision theory concept of "ambiguity" as an analytic framework, we tested several predictions about the effects of conflicting recommendations regarding mammography recommendations on behavior, cognitions, and emotions related to mammography screening. We found high perceived ambiguity about mammography recommendations to be associated with both diminished uptake of mammography over time [odds ratio (OR), 0.42; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.23-0.76; P < 0.0001] and lower intentions for future mammography (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.55; P < 0.0001). High perceived ambiguity also predicted greater mammography-related worry over time (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.79-3.78; P < 0.0001). These findings suggest that conflicting recommendations regarding cancer screening and prevention have important effects, and we discuss the implications of these findings for future research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17372241     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0533

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  36 in total

1.  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

2.  What have we learned from risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy?

Authors:  Mark H Greene; Phuong L Mai
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Low Health Literacy and Health Information Avoidance but Not Satisficing Help Explain "Don't Know" Responses to Questions Assessing Perceived Risk.

Authors:  Heather Orom; Elizabeth Schofield; Marc T Kiviniemi; Erika A Waters; Caitlin Biddle; Xuewei Chen; Yuelin Li; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Source-specific Exposure to Contradictory Nutrition Information: Documenting Prevalence and Effects on Adverse Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes.

Authors:  Chul-Joo Lee; Rebekah H Nagler; Ningxin Wang
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2017-02-02

5.  Perceived ambiguity as a barrier to intentions to learn genome sequencing results.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; William M P Klein; Rebecca A Ferrer; Paul K J Han; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2015-05-24

6.  Predictors of perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: sociodemographic factors and mass media exposures.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Richard P Moser; William M P Klein; Ellen Burke Beckjord; Andrea C Dunlavy; Bradford W Hesse
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2009-12

Review 7.  Decision making and cancer.

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

8.  Adverse outcomes associated with media exposure to contradictory nutrition messages.

Authors:  Rebekah H Nagler
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2013-10-11

9.  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

10.  Assessing the Impact of Conflicting Health Warning Information on Intentions to Use E-Cigarettes -An Application of the Heuristic-Systematic Model.

Authors:  Sherri Jean Katz; Meghan Erkkinen; Bruce Lindgren; Dorothy Hatsukami
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2018-10-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.