Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk.

OBJECTIVE To test the effect of novel representations of randomness on risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about individualized colorectal cancer risk estimates. METHODS A web-based factorial experiment was conducted, in which 225 adults aged 40 years and older were provided with hypothetical individualized colorectal cancer risk estimates, using 5 different textual and visual representations varying in expressed randomness. Outcome measures were perceived cancer risk, cancer worry, and subjective uncertainty about cancer risk; the moderating effect of dispositional optimism was also examined. RESULTS Representational format was significantly associated with subjective uncertainty about cancer risk, but not with perceived cancer risk or worry. A format using software-based animation to express randomness dynamically led to the highest subjective uncertainty, although a static visual non-random format also increased uncertainty. Dispositional optimism moderated this effect; between-format differences in uncertainty were significant only for participants with low optimism. CONCLUSION Representing randomness in individualized estimates of cancer risk increases subjective uncertainty about risk. A novel dynamic visual format produces the greatest effect, which is moderated by individual differences in optimism. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Novel representations of randomness may be effective in improving people's understanding of the essential uncertainty pertaining to individualized cancer risk estimates.

[1]  V. Reyna,et al.  How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  K. Weinfurt,et al.  Patient Expectations of Benefit from Phase I Clinical Trials: Linguistic Considerations in Diagnosing a Therapeutic Misconception , 2003, Theoretical medicine and bioethics.

[3]  Robert L. Winkler Ambiguity, probability, preference, and decision analysis , 1991 .

[4]  M. Diefenbach,et al.  Specific worry about breast cancer predicts mammography use in women at risk for breast and ovarian cancer. , 1999, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[5]  A. Freedman,et al.  Conceptual problems in laypersons’ understanding of individualized cancer risk: a qualitative study , 2009, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[6]  Andrew N Freedman,et al.  Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  E. Weber,et al.  Effects of Game-Like Interactive Graphics on Risk Perceptions and Decisions , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  Theresa M Marteau,et al.  Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. , 2009, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[9]  I. Hacking An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic , 2001 .

[10]  E. Claus Risk models used to counsel women for breast and ovarian cancer: a guide for clinicians , 2004, Familial Cancer.

[11]  M H Gail,et al.  Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Perceptions of randomness: why three heads are better than four. , 2009, Psychological review.

[13]  Michael W. Bridges,et al.  Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  G. Colditz,et al.  A qualitative evaluation of the Harvard Cancer Risk Index. , 1999, Journal of health communication.

[15]  P. Guttorp,et al.  The Taming of Chance. , 1992 .

[16]  Samir Okasha,et al.  Philosophical Theories of Probability , 2002 .

[17]  Andrew N Freedman,et al.  Laypersons' Responses to the Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Cancer Risk Estimates , 2009, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  C. McHorney,et al.  Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[19]  Jeffrey R. Botkin,et al.  BRCA1 Testing: Genetic Counseling Protocol Development and Counseling Issues , 1997, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[20]  D. Gillies Philosophical Theories of Probability , 2000 .

[21]  W. Willett,et al.  Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention Volume 4: Harvard Cancer Risk Index , 2004, Cancer Causes & Control.

[22]  I. Lipkus,et al.  Relationships among breast cancer concern, risk perceptions, and interest in genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility among African-American women with and without a family history of breast cancer. , 1999, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[23]  L A Lenert,et al.  Use of meta-analytic results to facilitate shared decision making. , 1999, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[24]  B. Rimer,et al.  General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[25]  Andrew N Freedman,et al.  Cancer risk prediction models: a workshop on development, evaluation, and application. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.