Literature DB >> 20671211

Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors.

Paul K J Han1, William M P Klein2, Tom Lehman3, Bill Killam4, Holly Massett5, Andrew N Freedman2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of communicating uncertainty regarding individualized colorectal cancer risk estimates and to identify factors that influence these effects.
METHODS: Two Web-based experiments were conducted, in which adults aged 40 years and older were provided with hypothetical individualized colorectal cancer risk estimates differing in the extent and representation of expressed uncertainty. The uncertainty consisted of imprecision (otherwise known as "ambiguity") of the risk estimates and was communicated using different representations of confidence intervals. Experiment 1 (n = 240) tested the effects of ambiguity (confidence interval v. point estimate) and representational format (textual v. visual) on cancer risk perceptions and worry. Potential effect modifiers, including personality type (optimism), numeracy, and the information's perceived credibility, were examined, along with the influence of communicating uncertainty on responses to comparative risk information. Experiment 2 (n = 135) tested enhanced representations of ambiguity that incorporated supplemental textual and visual depictions.
RESULTS: Communicating uncertainty led to heightened cancer-related worry in participants, exemplifying the phenomenon of "ambiguity aversion." This effect was moderated by representational format and dispositional optimism; textual (v. visual) format and low (v. high) optimism were associated with greater ambiguity aversion. However, when enhanced representations were used to communicate uncertainty, textual and visual formats showed similar effects. Both the communication of uncertainty and use of the visual format diminished the influence of comparative risk information on risk perceptions.
CONCLUSIONS: The communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates has complex effects, which include heightening cancer-related worry-consistent with ambiguity aversion-and diminishing the influence of comparative risk information on risk perceptions. These responses are influenced by representational format and personality type, and the influence of format appears to be modifiable and content dependent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20671211      PMCID: PMC3086475          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10371830

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


  29 in total

1.  Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  M H Gail; J P Costantino
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests.

Authors:  Linda D Cameron; Kerry A Sherman; Theresa M Marteau; Paul M Brown
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  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

4.  Relationships among breast cancer concern, risk perceptions, and interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility among African-American women with and without a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; D Iden; J Terrenoire; J R Feaganes
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  A qualitative evaluation of the Harvard Cancer Risk Index.

Authors:  K M Emmons; S Koch-Weser; K Atwood; L Conboy; R Rudd; G Colditz
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  1999 Jul-Sep

6.  Harvard report on cancer prevention volume 4: Harvard Cancer Risk Index. Risk Index Working Group, Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention.

Authors:  G A Colditz; K A Atwood; K Emmons; R R Monson; W C Willett; D Trichopoulos; D J Hunter
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  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

8.  Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care.

Authors:  M M Schapira; A B Nattinger; C A McHorney
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

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

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Thomas C Lehman; Holly Massett; Simon C Lee; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 10.  Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception.

Authors:  William M P Klein; Michael E Stefanek
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

View more
  39 in total

1.  Genetic risk models: Influence of model size on risk estimates and precision.

Authors:  Ying Shan; Gerard Tromp; Helena Kuivaniemi; Diane T Smelser; Shefali S Verma; Marylyn D Ritchie; James R Elmore; David J Carey; Yvette P Conley; Michael B Gorin; Daniel E Weeks
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 2.135

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.  Decision making and cancer.

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

Review 5.  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

6.  Evaluating the Impact of Uncertainty on Risk Prediction: Towards More Robust Prediction Models.

Authors:  Panayiotis Petousis; Arash Naeim; Ali Mosleh; William Hsu
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

7.  Factorial validity and invariance of four psychosocial constructs of colorectal cancer screening: does screening experience matter?

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Deborah J Del Junco; Sharon P Coan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  A focus group study on breast cancer risk presentation: one format does not fit all.

Authors:  Michel Dorval; Karine Bouchard; Jocelyne Chiquette; Gord Glendon; Christine M Maugard; Wilhelm Dubuisson; Seema Panchal; Jacques Simard
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  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

10.  How Patients View Lung Cancer Screening. The Role of Uncertainty in Medical Decision Making.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Charu Aggarwal; Scott Akers; Jaya Aysola; Diana Imbert; Corey Langer; Charlie B Simone; Emily Strittmatter; Anil Vachani; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2016-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.