Literature DB >> 20739135

Risky feelings: why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%.

Brian J Zikmund-Fisher1, Angela Fagerlin, Peter A Ubel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Emotion plays a strong role in the perception of risk information but is frequently underemphasized in the decision-making and communication literature. We sought to discuss and put into context several lines of research that have explored the links between emotion and risk perceptions.
METHODS: In this article, we provide a focused, "state of the science" review of research revealing the ways that emotion, or affect, influences people's cancer-related decisions. We identify illustrative experimental research studies that demonstrate the role of affect in people's estimates of cancer risk, their decisions between different cancer treatments, their perceptions of the chance of cancer recurrence, and their reactions to different methods of presenting risk information.
RESULTS: These studies show that people have strong affective reactions to cancer risk information and that the way risk information is presented often determines the emotional gist people take away from such communications.
CONCLUSION: Cancer researchers, educators and oncologists need to be aware that emotions are often more influential in decision making about cancer treatments and prevention behaviors than factual knowledge is. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Anticipating and assessing affective reactions is an essential step in the evaluation and improvement of cancer risk communications.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20739135      PMCID: PMC2993812          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  34 in total

1.  Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk.

Authors:  Y Rottenstreich; C K Hsee
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-05

2.  Risk as feelings.

Authors:  G F Loewenstein; E U Weber; C K Hsee; N Welch
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 17.737

3.  Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; Nathan F Dieckmann; Daniel Västfjäll; C K Mertz; Paul Slovic; Judith H Hibbard
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2009-09

4.  Affect, risk, and decision making.

Authors:  Paul Slovic; Ellen Peters; Melissa L Finucane; Donald G Macgregor
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  Context and the interpretation of likelihood information: the role of intergroup comparisons on perceived vulnerability.

Authors:  Paul D Windschitl; René Martin; Annette R Flugstad
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2002-05

6.  Risk information exposure and direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations among women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Cristin O'Grady; Lauren Karp; Daniel Smith; J Sanford Schwartz; Robert C Hornik; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-24       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Dylan M Smith; Holly A Derry; Jennifer B McClure; Azadeh Stark; Rosemarie K Pitsch; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-11

8.  Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk of occurrence.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Todd R Roberts; Holly A Derry; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2008-03

9.  The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-08-27

10.  Cancer risk communication in mainstream and ethnic newspapers.

Authors:  Jo Ellen Stryker; Jessica Fishman; Karen M Emmons; Kasisomayajula Viswanath
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  33 in total

1.  Local Therapy Decision-Making and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Young Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Shoshana M Rosenberg; Karen Sepucha; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Shari Gelber; Meghan E Meyer; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Virginia F Borges; Mehra Golshan; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  Promoting influenza vaccination: insights from a qualitative meta-analysis of 14 years of influenza-related communications research by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Authors:  Glen J Nowak; Kristine Sheedy; Kelli Bursey; Teresa M Smith; Michelle Basket
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.641

Review 3.  Risk calculators-methods, development, implementation, and validation.

Authors:  Ulrich Mansmann; Anna Rieger; Brigitte Strahwald; Alexander Crispin
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-04-23       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 4.  Current challenges in health economic modeling of cancer therapies: a research inquiry.

Authors:  Jeffrey D Miller; Kathleen A Foley; Mason W Russell
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2014-05

Review 5.  Decision making and cancer.

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

6.  Social and Clinical Determinants of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Reshma Jagsi; Monica Morrow; Nancy K Janz; Ann Hamilton; John J Graff; Steven J Katz
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 14.766

7.  What does risk of future cancer mean to breast cancer patients?

Authors:  Karen Kaiser; Kenzie A Cameron; Jennifer Beaumont; Sofia F Garcia; Leilani Lacson; Margaret Moran; Lindsey Karavites; Chiara Rodgers; Swati Kulkarni; Nora M Hansen; Seema A Khan
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Usability and feasibility of consumer-facing technology to reduce unsafe medication use by older adults.

Authors:  Richard J Holden; Noll L Campbell; Ephrem Abebe; Daniel O Clark; Denisha Ferguson; Kunal Bodke; Malaz A Boustani; Christopher M Callahan
Journal:  Res Social Adm Pharm       Date:  2019-02-26

Review 9.  Patients' intuitive judgments about surveillance endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus: a review and application to models of decision-making.

Authors:  M Hinojosa-Lindsey; J Arney; S Heberlig; J R Kramer; R L Street; H B El-Serag; A D Naik
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 3.429

10.  Using a Non-Fit Message Helps to De-Intensify Negative Reactions to Tough Advice.

Authors:  Ilona Fridman; Karen A Scherr; Paul A Glare; E Tory Higgins
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2016-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.