Literature DB >> 27398375

Attitude to health risk in the Canadian population: a cross-sectional survey.

Nick Bansback1, Mark Harrison1, Mohsen Sadatsafavi1, Anne Stiggelbout1, David G T Whitehurst1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Risk is a ubiquitous part of health care. Understanding how people respond to risks is important for predicting how populations make health decisions. Our objective was to seek preliminary descriptive insights into the attitude to health risk in the Canadian population and factors associated with heterogeneity in risk attitude.
METHODS: We used a large market-research panel to survey (in English and French) a representative sample of the Canadian general population that reflected the age, sex and geography of the population. The survey included the Health-Risk Attitude Scale, which predicts how a person resolves risky health decisions related to treatment, prevention of disease and health-related behaviour. In addition, we assessed participants' numeracy and risk understanding, as well as income band and level of education. We summarized the responses, and we explored the independent associations between demographics, numeracy, risk understanding and risk attitude in multivariable models.
RESULTS: Of 6780 respondents, 4949 (73.0%) were averse to health risks; however, but there was considerable heterogeneity in the magnitude of risk aversion. We found significant gradients of risk averse attitudes with increasing age and being female (p < 0.001) using the multivariable model. French-speaking participants appeared to be more risk averse than those who were English-speaking (p < 0.001), as were individuals scoring higher on the Subjective Numeracy Scale (p < 0.001). INTERPREATION: In general, Canadians were averse to health risks, but we found that a sizeable, identifiable group of risk takers exists. Heterogeneity in preferences for risk can explain variations in health care utilization in the context of patient-centred care. Understanding risk preference heterogeneity can help guide policy and assist in patient-physician decisions.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27398375      PMCID: PMC4933649          DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20150071

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ Open        ISSN: 2291-0026


  15 in total

1.  Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches.

Authors:  M Couper
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2000

2.  Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care.

Authors:  Michael J Barry; Susan Edgman-Levitan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  A policy to promote influenza vaccination: a behavioral economic approach.

Authors:  Yoshiro Tsutsui; Uri Benzion; Shosh Shahrabani; Gregory Yom Din
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  Is risk attitude outcome specific within the health domain?

Authors:  Marjon van der Pol; Matteo Ruggeri
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.

Authors:  Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Societal preferences for rheumatoid arthritis treatments: evidence from a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Carlo Marra; Kam Shojania; Nick Bansback
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 7.580

7.  How well do commonly used data presentation formats support comparative effectiveness evaluations?

Authors:  James G Dolan; Feng Qian; Peter J Veazie
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting.

Authors:  James D Harrison; Jane M Young; Phyllis Butow; Glenn Salkeld; Michael J Solomon
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Does Introducing Imprecision around Probabilities for Benefit and Harm Influence the Way People Value Treatments?

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Mark Harrison; Carlo Marra
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  2 in total

1.  Elective orthopaedic surgery and COVID-19: knowledge and perceptions of patients in a global pandemic.

Authors:  Sean Wei Loong Ho; Tong Leng Tan; Keng Thiam Lee
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 1.858

Review 2.  Beyond rationality: Expanding the practice of shared decision making in modern medicine.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Thomas; Sarah Bauerle Bass; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2021-04-03       Impact factor: 4.634

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.