Literature DB >> 18061368

Assessing perceptions of cancer risk: does mode of assessment or numeracy matter?

Kimberly M Kelly1, Kristi D Graves, Felicity W K Harper, John E Schmidt, Stephanie L Dickinson, Michael A Andrykowski.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many existing models of health behavior advance perceived risk for disease as a key motivator of risk-reduction behavior. Thus evaluating contextual factors that may influence assessment of perceived risk is important. We examined (1) how mode of assessment (mail, telephone, web-based) and numeracy affect reported estimates of perceived risk of colon cancer, and (2) how the amount of missing perceived risk data differs as a function of mode of assessment and numeracy.
METHOD: Women (N=457; mean age=61.3 years) with and without Internet access participated. Women without Internet access (n=233) were randomized into telephone or mail modes of assessment, and women with Internet access (n=224) were randomized into telephone, mail, or web-based modes of assessment. Numeracy and four different estimates of perceived lifetime risk for colon cancer (personal percentage, population percentage, comparative, binary) were assessed.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found in obtained risk estimates for any of the four risk perception items across the different modes of assessment. Greater numeracy was associated with lower percentage estimates of perceived risk. In general, the telephone mode of assessment yielded less missing data than the mail mode of assessment.
CONCLUSION: Mode of assessment largely does not matter when it comes to assessing perceived colon cancer risk. However, numeracy does matter and specifically impacts percentage estimates of perceived risk. While web-based, mail, and telephone modes may be used interchangeably when assessing perceived cancer risk; less missing data may result with telephone data collection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18061368     DOI: 10.1016/j.cdp.2007.10.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev        ISSN: 0361-090X


  9 in total

1.  Great expectations: patient perspectives and anticipated utility of non-diagnostic genomic-sequencing results.

Authors:  Robyn Hylind; Maureen Smith; Laura Rasmussen-Torvik; Sharon Aufox
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2017-06-27

2.  How Well Do Customers of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing Services Comprehend Genetic Test Results? Findings from the Impact of Personal Genomics Study.

Authors:  Jenny E Ostergren; Michele C Gornick; Deanna Alexis Carere; Sarah S Kalia; Wendy R Uhlmann; Mack T Ruffin; Joanna L Mountain; Robert C Green; J Scott Roberts
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Effects of patient-provider race concordance and smoking status on lung cancer risk perception accuracy among African-Americans.

Authors:  Susan Persky; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Vincent C Allen; Ibrahim Senay
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2013-06

4.  Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Rachel Nusbaum; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Gillian W Hooker; Beth N Peshkin; Morgan Butrick; William Tuong; Jeena Mathew; David Goerlitz; Mary B Fishman; Peter G Shields; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 5.736

Review 5.  Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine.

Authors:  Michael J Hall; Andrea D Forman; Susan V Montgomery; Kim L Rainey; Mary B Daly
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.454

6.  Numeracy and communication with patients: they are counting on us.

Authors:  Andrea J Apter; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Janine T Remillard; Ian M Bennett; Elana Pearl Ben-Joseph; Rosanna M Batista; James Hyde; Rima E Rudd
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-02       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Risk perception among Brazilian individuals with high risk for colorectal cancer and colonoscopy.

Authors:  Erika M Santos; Maria Tc Lourenço; Benedito M Rossi
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 2.857

8.  Impact of numeracy on understanding of prostate cancer risk reduction in PSA screening.

Authors:  Kevin Koo; Charles D Brackett; Ellen H Eisenberg; Kelly A Kieffer; Elias S Hyams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Diabetes prevention among American Indians: the role of self-efficacy, risk perception, numeracy and cultural identity.

Authors:  Vanessa W Simonds; Adam Omidpanah; Dedra Buchwald
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 3.295

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.