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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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