Literature DB >> 33046450

Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.

Erika A Waters1, Jennifer M Taber2, Amy McQueen3, Ashley J Housten3, Jamie L Studts4,5, Laura D Scherer4.   

Abstract

Cancer risk prediction models such as those published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention are a cornerstone of precision medicine and public health efforts to improve population health outcomes by tailoring preventive strategies and therapeutic treatments to the people who are most likely to benefit. However, there are several barriers to the effective translation, dissemination, and implementation of cancer risk prediction models into clinical and public health practice. In this commentary, we discuss two broad categories of barriers. Specifically, we assert that the successful use of risk-stratified cancer prevention and treatment strategies is particularly unlikely if risk prediction models are translated into risk assessment tools that (i) are difficult for the public to understand or (ii) are not structured in a way to engender the public's confidence that the results are accurate. We explain what aspects of a risk assessment tool's design and content may impede understanding and acceptance by the public. We also describe strategies for translating a cancer risk prediction model into a cancer risk assessment tool that is accessible, meaningful, and useful for the public and in clinical practice. ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33046450      PMCID: PMC8170537          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0861

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  66 in total

1.  Validation and testing of the Acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care.

Authors:  Joseph D Tariman; Donna L Berry; Barbara Halpenny; Seth Wolpin; Karen Schepp
Journal:  Appl Nurs Res       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 2.257

Review 2.  Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations.

Authors:  Isaac M Lipkus
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-09-14       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Edward T Cokely
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 2.888

Review 4.  The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Anthony J Viera; Mori J Krantz; Christa L Ice; Lesley E Steinman; Karen E Peters; Laurie A Kopin; Danielle Lungelow
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-08

5.  An Internet-based osteoporotic fracture risk program: effect on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

Authors:  Rebecca L Drieling; Jun Ma; Sreedevi Thiyagarajan; Randall S Stafford
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 6.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

Review 7.  Precision Public Health for the Era of Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Muin J Khoury; Michael F Iademarco; William T Riley
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  "I know what you told me, but this is what I think:" perceived risk of Alzheimer disease among individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based risk estimate.

Authors:  Erin Linnenbringer; J Scott Roberts; Susan Hiraki; L Adrienne Cupples; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 9.  Patients' memory for medical information.

Authors:  Roy P C Kessels
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 18.000

Review 10.  The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gareth J Hollands; David P French; Simon J Griffin; A Toby Prevost; Stephen Sutton; Sarah King; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-03-15
View more
  4 in total

1.  Adherence of Internet-Based Cancer Risk Assessment Tools to Best Practices in Risk Communication: Content Analysis.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Jeremy L Foust; Laura D Scherer; Amy McQueen; Jennifer M Taber
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  A clinical scoring tool validated with machine learning for predicting severe hand-foot syndrome from sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Ahmad Y Abuhelwa; Sarah Badaoui; Hoi-Yee Yuen; Ross A McKinnon; Warit Ruanglertboon; Kiran Shankaran; Anniepreet Tuteja; Michael J Sorich; Ashley M Hopkins
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 3.333

3.  Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information.

Authors:  Ruben D Vromans; Saar Hommes; Felix J Clouth; Deborah N N Lo-Fo-Wong; Xander A A M Verbeek; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Steffen Pauws; Emiel Krahmer
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 3.298

4.  Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy.

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Ashley J Housten; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2021-07-20
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.