Risk Perception and Psychological Morbidity in Men at Elevated Risk for Prostate Cancer

Matthew, Andrew; Davidson, T.; Ochs, Sarah; Currie, Kristen L.; Petrella, Anika; Finelli, Antonio

doi:10.3747/co.22.2679

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Without exception, all of these studies used measures of “concern” or “worry” regarding a risk. Seven studies (9%) measured risk perception following the traditionally accepted definition of risk, including separate items to measure probability & consequences (e.g., Matthew et al., ; Rosen & Kostjukovsky, ; Yang, ). Probability was assessed with one or more items asking about the “chances,” “likelihood,” or “probability” of realizing a risk.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decades of research identify risk perception as a largely intuitive and affective construct, in contrast to the more deliberative assessments of probability and consequences that form the foundation of risk assessment. However, a review of the literature reveals that many of the risk perception measures employed in survey research with human subjects are either generic in nature, not capturing any particular affective, probabilistic, or consequential dimension of risk; or focused solely on judgments of probability. The goal of this research was to assess a multidimensional measure of risk perception across multiple hazards to identify a measure that will be broadly useful for assessing perceived risk moving forward. Our results support the idea of risk perception being multidimensional, but largely a function of individual affective reactions to the hazard. We also find that our measure of risk perception holds across multiple types of hazards, ranging from those that are behavioral in nature (e.g., health and safety behaviors), to those that are technological (e.g., pollution), or natural (e.g., extreme weather). We suggest that a general, unidimensional measure of risk may accurately capture one's perception of the severity of the consequences, and the discrete emotions that are felt in response to those potential consequences. However, such a measure is not likely to capture the perceived probability of experiencing the outcomes, nor will it be as useful at understanding one's motivation to take mitigation action.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To optimize engagement with the clinic service, the information gaps and psychosocial needs indicated by patients in this study could be addressed by the introduction of a structured process to gather, utilize and disseminate information within routine clinical care, and incorporate patients' recommendations for more effective risk communication with their clinicians. As described above, clinicians in this study communicated with their patients within the clinic appointment in a way that supported shared decision making.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reflecting the preference‐sensitive nature of this decision, clinicians gave assurances without explicitly directing patients towards an option and respected patients' choices. Furthermore, access to a specialist Prostate Cancer Nurse within the clinic contributed to patients' understanding of their cancer and the risks it posed to their survival, quality of life and psychological well‐being, as well as offering them reassurance that their PCa was being actively monitored using a protocol that reflected their priorities. Clinicians outlined individuals' assessment results, and an estimation of their clinical risk, including rates of survival after 10 years, and addressed the pressing psychosocial concerns that patients raised, such as maintaining sexual activity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer

Hogden

Churruca

Rapport

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesMen diagnosed with low‐risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and care.MethodParticipants were nine patients and three clinicians from a university hospital urology clinic. A staged, qualitative, multi‐method data collection approach was undertaken, comprising: observations of consultations; patient and clinician interviews; and patient surveys. The three data sets were analysed separately using thematic analysis and then integrated to give a comprehensive view of patient and clinician views.ResultsThirty data points (eight patient surveys; 10 observations of consultations between patients and clinicians; 10 patient interviews; and two clinician interviews) combined to create a detailed picture of how patients perceived and appraised risk, in three themes of “Making sense of risk”, “Talking about risk” and “Responding to risk”.ConclusionEffective risk communication needs to be finely tuned and timed to individual patient's priorities and information requirements. A structured information exchange process that identifies patients' priorities, and details key moments in risk assessment, so that complexities of risk are discussed in ways that are meaningful to patients, may benefit patient care. These findings could inform the development of patient‐centric risk assessment procedures and service delivery models in prostate cancer care more broadly.

show abstract

“…For example, to answer the question “How concerned are you (if at all) about the potential negative effects of lead exposure?”, response options ranged from 1 = “not at all concerned” to 5 = “extremely concerned.” All items were averaged for each respondent to create a composite measure of perceived risk. This approach to constructing a multidimensional risk variable is commonly used in survey‐based risk studies (e.g., Matthew et al., 2015; Rosen & Kostjukovsky, 2015; Z. J. Yang, 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All items were averaged for each respondent to create a composite measure of perceived risk. This approach to constructing a multidimensional risk variable is commonly used in survey-based risk studies (e.g., Matthew et al, 2015;Rosen & Kostjukovsky, 2015; Z. J. Yang, 2016).…”

Section: Perceived Risk Of Lead Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and subjective knowledge influence perceived risk of lead exposure

Goebel,

Wardropper

2023

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lead exposure is a persistent environmental hazard that poses risks to human health. But motivating protective action is challenging with this low visibility hazard whose health effects are often subtle and chronic. Higher risk perception is generally associated with taking protective measures, so public health efforts prioritize risk messaging. Yet, little is known about perceptions of lead exposure risk among the U.S. public. Using cross‐sectional data from a national survey of 1035 U.S. residents, we measured the role of trust in government management of lead and subjective knowledge about lead as predictors of perceived risk of lead exposure, controlling for demographic and environmental factors. We also assessed if subjective knowledge moderated the relationship between trust and perceived risk. Our results reveal positive relationships between trust in government management of lead, subjective knowledge about lead, and risk perception, which we attribute in part to the important role government agencies play in secondary prevention, or communicating the risks of environmental lead exposure. We also found that younger people and people living in a house built before lead paint regulations passed in 1978 perceived higher lead risks. Our findings suggest that general communication about lead risks should aim to increase people's subjective knowledge in a consistent and balanced way that improves trust in government messengers.

show abstract

Risk Perception and Psychological Morbidity in Men at Elevated Risk for Prostate Cancer

Cited by 4 publications

References 45 publications

Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception

Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer

Trust and subjective knowledge influence perceived risk of lead exposure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About