Literature DB >> 21377311

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

Paul K J Han1, William M P Klein, Bill Killam, Tom Lehman, Holly Massett, Andrew N Freedman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of novel representations of randomness on risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about individualized colorectal cancer risk estimates.
METHODS: A web-based factorial experiment was conducted, in which 225 adults aged 40 years and older were provided with hypothetical individualized colorectal cancer risk estimates, using 5 different textual and visual representations varying in expressed randomness. Outcome measures were perceived cancer risk, cancer worry, and subjective uncertainty about cancer risk; the moderating effect of dispositional optimism was also examined.
RESULTS: Representational format was significantly associated with subjective uncertainty about cancer risk, but not with perceived cancer risk or worry. A format using software-based animation to express randomness dynamically led to the highest subjective uncertainty, although a static visual non-random format also increased uncertainty. Dispositional optimism moderated this effect; between-format differences in uncertainty were significant only for participants with low optimism.
CONCLUSION: Representing randomness in individualized estimates of cancer risk increases subjective uncertainty about risk. A novel dynamic visual format produces the greatest effect, which is moderated by individual differences in optimism. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Novel representations of randomness may be effective in improving people's understanding of the essential uncertainty pertaining to individualized cancer risk estimates.
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21377311      PMCID: PMC3132425          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.033

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


  20 in total

1.  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

2.  BRCA1 Testing: Genetic Counseling Protocol Development and Counseling Issues.

Authors:  B J Baty; V L Venne; J McDonald; R T Croyle; C Halls; J E Nash; J R Botkin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  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

4.  Effects of game-like interactive graphics on risk perceptions and decisions.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Elke U Weber; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

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

Review 9.  Perceptions of randomness: why three heads are better than four.

Authors:  Ulrike Hahn; Paul A Warren
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 8.934

10.  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

View more
  22 in total

1.  Effects of personalized colorectal cancer risk information on laypersons' interest in colorectal cancer screening: The importance of individual differences.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Christine W Duarte; Susannah Daggett; Andrea Siewers; Bill Killam; Kahsi A Smith; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-07-19

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.  Impact of Information Presentation Format on Preference for Total Knee Replacement Surgery.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; W Benjamin Nowell; Christine E Stake; Shilpa Venkatachalam; Rachel Eyler; George Michel; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 4.794

4.  Cancer Worry Among Urban Dominican Women: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Alsacia L Sepulveda-Pacsi; Grenny Hiraldo; Keville Frederickson
Journal:  J Transcult Nurs       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 1.959

5.  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

Review 6.  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

7.  Evaluation of risk communication in a mammography patient decision aid.

Authors:  Krystal A Klein; Lindsey Watson; Joan S Ash; Karen B Eden
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-02-26

8.  An information-centric framework for designing patient-centered medical decision aids and risk communication.

Authors:  Lyndsey Franklin; Catherine Plaisant; Ben Shneiderman
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

9.  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

10.  Prognosis Communication in Late-Life Disability: A Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Theresa W Wong; Sean Lang-Brown; Rafael D Romo; Alvin Au-Yeung; Sei J Lee; Patricia J Moran; Jason Karlawish; Rebecca Sudore; Josephine Clayton; Alexander K Smith
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 5.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.