Conceptual problems in laypersons' understanding of individualized cancer risk: A qualitative study

Health Expectations

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 4-17

  Han, Paul K J ^a   Lehman, Thomas C ^b   Massett, Holly ^a   Lee, Simon J C ^c   Klein, William M P ^d   Freedman, Andrew N ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Numeracy; Risk; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

AGED; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 61449257375     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00524.x     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1989 81 : 1879 1886.
2. National Cancer Institute. About Risk Communication Models. Available at: http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/cancer-risk-prediction/about.html, 2007, accessed on 26 August 2008.
3. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1998 90 : 1371 1388.
4. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006 295 : 2727 2741.
5. Claus EB. Risk models used to counsel women for breast and ovarian cancer: a guide for clinicians. Familial Cancer, 2001 1 : 197 206.
6. Euhus DM. Understanding mathematical models for breast cancer risk assessment and counseling. The Breast Journal, 2001 7 : 224 232.
7. Klein WM, Stefanek ME. Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2007 57 : 147 167.
8. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 2007 26 : 136 145.
9. Edwards A, Hood K, Matthews E et al. The effectiveness of one-to-one risk communication interventions in health care: a systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 2000 20 : 290 297.
10. Lipkus IM, Biradavolu M, Fenn K, Keller P, Rimer BK. Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences. Health Communication, 2001 13 : 205 226.
11. Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating Breast Cancer Risks to Women Using Different Formats. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers Prevention, 2001 10 : 895 898.
12. Quillin JM, Fries E, McClish D, Shaw de Paredes E, Bodurtha J. Gail model risk assessment and risk perceptions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2004 27 : 205 214.
13. Edwards A, Unigwe S, Elwyn G, Hood K. Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review. BMJ, 2003 327 : 703 709.
14. Edwards A, Unigwe S, Elwyn G, Hood K. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about entering screening programs. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2003 CD001865.
15. Edwards A, Elwyn G. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Quality in Health Care, 2001 10 (Suppl. 1 i9 i13.
16. Lloyd AJ. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Quality in Health Care, 2001 10 (Suppl. 1 i14 i18.
17. Mazur DJ. Information disclosure and beyond: how do patients understand and use the information they report they want? Medical Decision Making, 2000 20 : 132 134.
18. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 2001 21 : 37 44.
19. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1997 127 : 966 972.
20. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Moncur M, Gabriel S, Tosteson AN. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Medical Decision Making, 2001 21 : 382 390.
21. Estrada C, Barnes V, Collins C, Byrd JC. Health literacy and numeracy. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1999 282 : 527.
22. Golbeck AL, Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Paschal AM, Dismuke SE. A definition and operational framework for health numeracy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2005 29 : 375 376.
23. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data. Effective Clinical Practice, 2002 5 : 35 40.
24. Hacking I. The Taming of Chance. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1990.
25. Borland R. What do people's estimates of smoking related risk mean? Psychology & Health, 1997 12 : 513 521.
26. Windschitl PD. Judging the accuracy of a likelihood judgment: the case of smoking risk. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2002 15 : 19 35.
27. Rockhill B. The privatization of risk. American Journal of Public Health, 2001 91 : 365 368.
28. Rockhill B. Theorizing about causes at the individual level while estimating effects at the population level: implications for prevention. Epidemiology, 2005 16 : 124 129.
29. Henderson R, Keiding N. Individual survival time prediction using statistical models. Journal of Medical Ethics, 2005 31 : 703 706.
30. Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. The risk of cancer risk prediction: "What is my risk of getting breast cancer"? Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2006 98 : 1673 1675.
31. Ware JH. The limitations of risk factors as prognostic tools. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2006 355 : 2615 2617.
32. Gillies D. Philosophical Theories of Probability. London : Routledge, 2000.
33. Hacking I. An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2001.
34. Weinfurt KP, Sulmasy DP, Schulman KA, Meropol NJ. Patient expectations of benefit from phase I clinical trials: linguistic considerations in diagnosing a therapeutic misconception. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 2003 24 : 329 344.
35. Thorne S, Hislop TG, Kuo M, Armstrong EA. Hope and probability: patient perspectives of the meaning of numerical information in cancer communication. Quality Health Research, 2006 16 : 318 336.
36. Weinfurt KP, Castel LD, Li Y et al. The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from Phase I clinical trials. Cancer, 2003 98 : 166 175.
37. Sofaer S. Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them? Health Service Research, 1999 34 : 1101 1118.
38. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 1995 311 : 299 302.
39. Krueger R, Casey M. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, 2000.
40. Morgan D. Focus Groups in Qualitative Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, 1998.
41. Freedman AN, Slattery ML, Ballard-Barbash R et al. A colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2009 27 : 686 693.
42. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the 'white male' effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2000 2 : 159 172.
43. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 2007 27 : 663 671.
44. Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Hesse BW et al. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination. Journal of Health Communication, 2004 9 : 443 460. discussion 481-444.
45. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Patients and medical statistics. Interest, confidence, and ability. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2005 20 : 996 1000.
46. Ryan GW, Bernard HR. Data management and analysis methods. In : Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks : Sage, 2003 : 259 309.
47. Gifford SM. The meaning of lumps: a case study of the ambiguities of risk. In : Janes CR, Stall R, Gifford SM (eds) Anthropology and Epidemiology. Dordrecht : D. Reidel, 1986 : 213 246.
48. Douglas M. Risk as a forensic resource. In : Burger E (ed) Risk. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan, 1993 : 1 16.
49. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987 236 : 280 285.
50. Tesh SN. Hidden Arguments: Political Arguments and Disease Prevention Policy. New Brunswick : Rutgers University Press, 1988.
51. Adelsward V, Sachs L. The meaning of 6.8: numeracy and normality in health information talks. Social Science & Medicine, 1996 43 : 1179 1187.
52. van Steenkiste B, van der Weijden T, Timmermans D, Vaes J, Stoffers J, Grol R. Patients' ideas, fears and expectations of their coronary risk: barriers for primary prevention. Patient Education and Counseling, 2004 55 : 301 307.
53. Tanenbaum SJ. Knowing and acting in medical practice: the epistemological politics of outcomes research. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 1994 19 : 27 44.
54. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 2008 18 : 89 107.
55. National Cancer Institute. DevCan - Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer. Available at: http://srab.cancer.gov/devcan, 2007, accessed on 26 August 2008.
56. Dillard AJ, McCaul KD, Kelso PD, Klein WM. Resisting good news: reactions to breast cancer risk communication. Health Communication, 2006 19 : 115 123.
57. McCaul KD, O'Donnell SM. Naive beliefs about breast cancer risk. Women's Health, 1998 4 : 93 101.
58. Fischhoff B, de Bruin WB. Fifty-fifty = 50%? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1999 12 : 149 163.
59. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 2001 127 : 267 286.
60. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG. The affect heuristic. In : Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002 : 397 420.
61. Gould SJ. The median isn't the message. Discover, 1985 6 : 40 42.
62. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 1982 11 : 143 157.
63. Morgan MG, Henrion M. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1990.
64. Griffin D, Tversky A. The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 1992 24 : 411 435.
65. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U, Kleinbolting H. Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 1991 98 : 506 528.
66. Knight FH. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1921.
67. McCaul KD, Canavello AB, Mathwig JL, Klein WMP. Risk communication and worry about breast cancer. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 2003 8 : 379 389.
68. Windschitl PD, Wells GL. Measuring psychological uncertainty: verbal versus numeric methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1996 2 : 343 364.
69. Nisbett RE, Krantz DH, Jepson C, Fong GT. Improving inductive inference. In : Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1982 : 445 459.
70. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences, 2007 17 : 147 159.
71. Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1961 75 : 643 669.
72. Nisbett RE, Krantz DH, Jepson C, Kunda Z. The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. In : Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002 : 510 533.
73. Steiner JF. Talking about treatment: the language of populations and the language of individuals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1999 130 : 618 622.
74. Goodman SN. Probability at the bedside: the knowing of chances or the chances of knowing? Annals of Internal Medicine, 1999 130 : 604 606.
75. US Department of Health and Human Services. Personalized Health Care: Opportunities, Pathways, Resources. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ myhealthcare, 2007, accessed on 26 August 2008.