Literature DB >> 19470720

Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates.

Paul K J Han1, William M P Klein, Thomas C Lehman, Holly Massett, Simon C Lee, Andrew N Freedman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty associated with individualized cancer risk estimates and to identify reasons for individual differences in these responses.
DESIGN: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups. Participants were informed about a new colorectal cancer risk prediction model, and presented with hypothetical individualized risk estimates using presentation formats varying in expressed uncertainty (range v. point estimate). Semistructured interviews explored participants' responses to this information. PARTICIPANTS AND
SETTING: Eight focus groups were conducted with 48 adults aged 50 to 74 residing in 2 major US metropolitan areas, Chicago, IL and Washington, DC. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants with a high school or greater education, some familiarity with information technology, and no personal or immediate family history of cancer.
RESULTS: Participants identified several sources of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates, including missing data, limitations in accuracy and source credibility, and conflicting information. In comparing presentation formats, most participants reported greater worry and perceived risk with the range than with the point estimate, consistent with the phenomenon of "ambiguity aversion.'' However, others reported the opposite effect or else indifference between formats. Reasons suggested by participants' responses included individual differences in optimism and motivations to reduce feelings of vulnerability and personal lack of control. Perceptions of source credibility and risk mutability emerged as potential mediating factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates differ, and include both heightened and diminished risk perceptions. These differences may be attributable to personality, cognitive, and motivational factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19470720      PMCID: PMC2730504          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327396

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  48 in total

Review 1.  Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them?

Authors:  S Sofaer
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review.

Authors:  H Bekker; J G Thornton; C M Airey; J B Connelly; J Hewison; M B Robinson; J Lilleyman; M MacIntosh; A J Maule; S Michie; A D Pearman
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Archimedes: a trial-validated model of diabetes.

Authors:  David M Eddy; Leonard Schlessinger
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 19.112

4.  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

Review 5.  Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.

Authors:  P Brindle; A Beswick; T Fahey; S Ebrahim
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-04-18       Impact factor: 5.994

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

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Richard P Moser; William M P Klein
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2006

7.  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

8.  The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism.

Authors:  James A Schirillo; Eric R Stone
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.000

9.  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

10.  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

View more
  28 in total

1.  Perceived risk, trust and health-related quality of life among cancer survivors.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Neeraj K Arora; William M P Klein; Paul K J Han
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2010-02

Review 2.  Communicating uncertainty in cancer prognosis: A review of web-based prognostic tools.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Paul K J Han; Borsika Rabin; Madelaine Bell; Hannah Kay; Luke Spooner; Stuart Peacock; Nick Bansback
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-12-12

3.  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

Review 4.  Communicating Uncertainty: a Narrative Review and Framework for Future Research.

Authors:  Arabella L Simpkin; Katrina A Armstrong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 5.128

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

6.  SI RLTD: Risk Scores and Decision Making: The Anatomy of a Decision to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Christine Holmberg; Mary Daly; Worta McCaskill-Stevens
Journal:  J Nurs Healthc Chronic Illn       Date:  2010-12

7.  Variation in treatment associated with life expectancy in a population-based cohort of men with early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timothy J Daskivich; Julie Lai; Andrew W Dick; Claude M Setodji; Janet M Hanley; Mark S Litwin; Christopher Saigal
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Bill Killam; Tom Lehman; Holly Massett; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-03-05

Review 9.  Communicating Uncertainty in Benefits and Harms: A Review of Patient Decision Support Interventions.

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Madelaine Bell; Luke Spooner; Alysa Pompeo; Paul K J Han; Mark Harrison
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload.

Authors:  Jakob D Jensen; Manusheela Pokharel; Courtney L Scherr; Andy J King; Natasha Brown; Christina Jones
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 4.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.