What is my cancer risk? How internet-based cancer risk assessment tools communicate individualized risk estimates to the public: Content analysis

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2009, Pages

  Waters, Erika A ^a   Sullivan, Helen W ^a   Nelson, Wendy ^a   Hesse, Bradford W ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Calculators; Cancer; Communication; Internet; Online; Perception; Programmable; Risk; Risk assessment; Risk calculator; Risk communication; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; INTERNET; LANGUAGE; MALE; NEOPLASM; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY;

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD INSURANCE PLANS; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; INTERNET; LANGUAGE; MALE; NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 70350439768     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14388871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1222     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Finney Rutten LJ, Moser RP, Beckjord EB, Hesse BW, Croyle RT. Cancer Communication: Health Information National Trends Survey. NIH Pub. No. 07-6214. Washington, DC: National Cancer Institute; 2007.
2. Ajzen I. From intentions to action: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckman J, editors. Action Control: From Cognitions to Behaviors. New York, NY: Springer; 1985:11-39.
3. Rosenstock IM. The health belief model. In: Glanz K, Lewis F, Rimer B, editors. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990:39-62.
4. Wills CE, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient comprehension of information for shared treatment decision making: state of the art and future directions. Patient Educ Couns 2003 Jul;50(3):285-290. [Medline: 12900101] [doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00051-X]
5. Gurmankin Levy A, Sonnad SS, Kurichi JE, Sherman M, Armstrong K. Making sense of cancer risk calculators on the web. J Gen Intern Med 2008 Mar;23(3):229-235 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 18188653] [doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0484-x]
6. Ekman A, Hall P, Litton JE. Can we trust cancer information on the Internet?-A comparison of interactive cancer risk sites. Cancer Causes Control 2005 Aug;16(6):765-772. [Medline: 16049816] [doi: 10.1007/s10552-005-1722-3]
7. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001;21(1):37-44. [Medline: 11206945] [doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100105]
8. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Med Decis Making 2005;25(3):290-300. [Medline: 15951456] [doi: 10.1177/0272989X05276860]
9. Reyna V, Brainerd CJ. The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn Individ Differ 2007;17(2):147-159. [doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.010]
10. Yamagishi K. When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol 1997;11(6):495-506. [doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199712)11:6<495::AID-ACP481>3.0.CO;2-J]
11. 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. Med Decis Making 2007;27(5):663-671. [Medline: 17652180] [doi: 10.1177/0272989X07303824]
12. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Patients and medical statistics. Interest, confidence, and ability. J Gen Intern Med 2005 Nov;20(11):996-1000 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 16307623]
13. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Gwyn R. General practice registrar responses to the use of different risk communication tools in simulated consultations: a focus group study. BMJ 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):749-752 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 10488001]
14. Rothman AJ, Martino SC, Bedell BT, Detweiler JB, Salovey P. The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1999;25(11):1355-1369. [doi: 10.1177/0146167299259003]
15. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun 2006 Mar;11(2):167-182. [Medline: 16537286] [doi: 10.1080/10810730500526695]
16. Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K, Colditz G. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making 2008;28(3):377-384. [Medline: 18480036] [doi: 10.1177/0272989X08315246]
17. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev 1995;102(4):684-704. [doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684]
18. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982 May 27;306(21):1259-1262. [Medline: 7070445]
19. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl 2007 Mar;13(1):11-21. [Medline: 17385998] [doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.13.1.11]
20. Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav 2007;31(Suppl 1):S47-S56. [Medline: 17931136]
21. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making 2007;27(1):34-43. [Medline: 17237451] [doi: 10.1177/0272989X06297101]
22. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007;27(5):696-713. [Medline: 17873259] [doi: 10.1177/0272989X07307271]
23. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 1992 Feb;92(2):121-124. [Medline: 1543193] [doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(92)90100-P]
24. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. "If I'm better than average, then I'm ok?": Comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Couns 2007 Dec;69(1-3):140-144 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 17942271] [doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.008]
25. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Risk communication in clinical practice: putting cancer in context. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;25(1):124-133. [Medline: 10854468]
26. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13(6):608-618 [FREE Full text] [Medline: 16929039] [doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2115]
27. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;25(1):149-163.
28. Klein WM. Comparative risk estimates relative to the average peer predict behavioral intentions and concern about absolute risk. Risk, Decision and Policy 2002;7(2):193-202. [doi: 10.1017/S1357530902000613]
29. Klein WM. Objective standards are not enough: affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997 Apr;72(4):763-774. [Medline: 9108694] [doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.763]
30. Lipkus IM, Klein WM. Effects of communicating social comparison information on risk perceptions for colorectal cancer. J Health Commun 2006 Jun;11(4):391-407. [Medline: 16720537] [doi: 10.1080/10810730600671870]
31. Weinstein ND, Sandman PM. The precaution adoption process model. In: Glanz K, Rimer B, Lewis F, editors. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 3rd edition. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons; 2002:121-143.
32. Leventhal H, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA. Illness cognition: using common sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions. Cognit Ther Res 1992;16(2):143-163. [doi: 10.1007/BF01173486]
33. Weinstein ND. What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;25(1):15-20. [Medline: 10854451]
34. Sullivan D. Nielsen NetRatings Search Engine Ratings. SearchEngineWatch.com. 2006. URL: http://searchenginewatch.com/_subscribers/topics/&bname=stats_netratings [accessed 2009 Jul 14]
35. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures. American Cancer Society. 2007. URL: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWsecured.pdf [accessed 2009 Jul 14]
36. WebMD - Better Information. Better Health. WebMD. 2009. URL: http://www.webmd.com/default.htm [accessed 2009 Jul 17] [WebCite Cache ID 5iK8dq3ct]
37. Rogers RW, Prentice-Dunn S. Protection motivation theory. In: Gochman DS, editor. Handbook of Health Behavior Research I: Personal and Social Determinants. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1997.
38. Hay J, Coups E, Ford J. Predictors of perceived risk for colon cancer in a national probability sample in the United States. J Health Commun 2006;11(Suppl 1):71-92. [Medline: 16641075] [doi: 10.1080/10810730600637376]
39. Slovic P, Monahan J, MacGregor DG. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum Behav 2000 Jun;24(3):271-296. [Medline: 10846372] [doi: 10.1023/A:1005595519944]
40. Berry DC, Michas IC, Bersellini E. Communicating information about medication side effects: effects on satisfaction, perceived risk to health, and intention to comply. Psychol Health 2002;17(3):247-267.
41. O'Reilly T. What is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O'Reilly Media Inc. 2005. URL: http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html [accessed 2009 Jan 28] [WebCite Cache ID 5eAjY4gTw]
42. Linden Research, Inc. Second Life. www.secondlife.com. 2009. URL: http://secondlife.com/ [accessed 2009 Jul 17] [WebCite Cache ID 5gCt3BksZ]