» Articles » PMID: 19250148

Conceptual Problems in Laypersons' Understanding of Individualized Cancer Risk: a Qualitative Study

Overview
Journal Health Expect
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Public Health
Date 2009 Mar 3
PMID 19250148
Citations 30
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To explore laypersons' understanding of individualized cancer risk estimates, and to identify conceptual problems that may limit this understanding.

Background: Risk prediction models are increasingly used to provide people with information about their individual risk of cancer and other diseases. However, laypersons may have difficulty understanding individualized risk information, because of conceptual as well as computational problems.

Design: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups. Semi-structured interviews explored participants' understandings of the concept of risk, and their interpretations of a hypothetical individualized colorectal cancer risk estimate.

Setting And Participants: Eight focus groups were conducted with 48 adults aged 50-74 years residing in two major US metropolitan areas. Participants had high school or greater education, some familiarity with information technology, and no personal or family history of cancer.

Results: Several important conceptual problems were identified. Most participants thought of risk not as a neutral statistical concept, but as signifying danger and emotional threat, and viewed cancer risk in terms of concrete risk factors rather than mathematical probabilities. Participants had difficulty acknowledging uncertainty implicit to the concept of risk, and judging the numerical significance of individualized risk estimates. The most challenging conceptual problems related to conflict between subjective and objective understandings of risk, and difficulties translating aggregate-level objective risk estimates to the individual level.

Conclusions: Several conceptual problems limit laypersons' understanding of individualized cancer risk information. These problems have implications for future research on health numeracy, and for the application of risk prediction models in clinical and public health settings.

Citing Articles

Women's preferences for testing to predict breast cancer risk - a discrete choice experiment.

Wang Y, Ho P, Mou L, Li J J Transl Med. 2025; 23(1):96.

PMID: 39838430 PMC: 11753052. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-025-06119-9.


Laypersons' understanding of statistical concepts commonly used in prescription drug promotion: A review of the research literature.

Yount N, Osafo-Darko B, Burns W, Johnson Jr M, Betts K, Sullivan H Res Social Adm Pharm. 2024; 20(12 Pt A):1075-1088.

PMID: 39266406 PMC: 11578788. DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.08.092.


Bridging the ICT Revolution and Communication Inequality: Lessons for Cancer Survivors.

Jung M Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2023; 24(9):2923-2928.

PMID: 37774042 PMC: 10762738. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2023.24.9.2923.


Analysis of the components of cancer risk perception and links with intention and behaviour: A UK-based study.

Riedinger C, Campbell J, Klein W, Ferrer R, Usher-Smith J PLoS One. 2022; 17(1):e0262197.

PMID: 35025940 PMC: 8757986. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262197.


Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening.

Usher-Smith J, Von Wagner C, Ghanouni A Cancer Control. 2022; 29:10732748211060289.

PMID: 34986038 PMC: 8744170. DOI: 10.1177/10732748211060289.


References
1.
Lipkus I, Klein W, Rimer B . Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001; 10(8):895-8. View

2.
Fisher B, Costantino J, Wickerham D, Redmond C, Kavanah M, Cronin W . Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998; 90(18):1371-88. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1371. View

3.
Estrada C, Barnes V, Collins C, Byrd J . Health literacy and numeracy. JAMA. 1999; 282(6):527. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.6.527. View

4.
Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U, Kleinbolting H . Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychol Rev. 1991; 98(4):506-28. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.98.4.506. View

5.
Kahneman D, Tversky A . Variants of uncertainty. Cognition. 1982; 11(2):143-57. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(82)90023-3. View