• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

测试传达结直肠癌风险的不同形式。

Testing different formats for communicating colorectal cancer risk.

作者信息

Lipkus I M, Crawford Y, Fenn K, Biradavolu M, Binder R A, Marcus A, Mason M

机构信息

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27701, USA.

出版信息

J Health Commun. 1999 Oct-Dec;4(4):311-24. doi: 10.1080/108107399126841.

DOI:10.1080/108107399126841
PMID:10790787
Abstract

This study assessed the extent to which different formats of informing men and women age 50 and over of the risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) affected their perceptions of their absolute and comparative (self versus other) 10-year and lifetime risks; emotional reactions about getting CRC; and screening intentions. Forty-four men and 78 women received information about the absolute lifetime risk of getting CRC. In addition, participants either did or did not receive information about (1) lifetime risk of getting CRC compared with other cancers, and (2) risk factors for CRC (age and polyps). Participants who received risk factors information were more likely to increase their perceived absolute 10-year and lifetime risks of getting CRC compared with participants who did not receive risk factors information. In addition, participants who received risk factors information were more likely to believe age was related to getting CRC and felt at greater risk for having polyps compared with participants who did not receive this information. None of the experimental conditions affected how worried, anxious, and fearful participants felt about getting CRC, nor did they affect screening intentions. Independent of experimental condition, participants tended to increase their intentions to get screened for CRC in the next year or two. Intention to be screened was more pronounced among participants who had been screened via a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or sigmoidoscopy (SIG). Implications for the design of interventions involving the communication of CRC risks are discussed.

摘要

本研究评估了向50岁及以上的男性和女性告知结直肠癌(CRC)风险的不同形式在多大程度上影响了他们对自身10年和终生绝对风险及比较风险(自我与他人相比)的认知;对患CRC的情绪反应;以及筛查意愿。44名男性和78名女性收到了关于患CRC终生绝对风险的信息。此外,参与者要么收到要么未收到关于以下两方面的信息:(1)与其他癌症相比患CRC的终生风险,以及(2)CRC的风险因素(年龄和息肉)。与未收到风险因素信息的参与者相比,收到风险因素信息的参与者更有可能提高他们对患CRC的10年和终生绝对风险的认知。此外,与未收到此信息的参与者相比,收到风险因素信息的参与者更有可能认为年龄与患CRC有关,并且感觉患息肉的风险更大。没有一种实验条件影响参与者对患CRC的担忧、焦虑和恐惧程度,也没有影响他们的筛查意愿。与实验条件无关,参与者倾向于增加在未来一两年内进行CRC筛查的意愿。在通过粪便潜血试验(FOBT)或乙状结肠镜检查(SIG)进行过筛查的参与者中,进行筛查的意愿更为明显。文中讨论了对涉及CRC风险沟通的干预措施设计的启示。

相似文献

1
Testing different formats for communicating colorectal cancer risk.测试传达结直肠癌风险的不同形式。
J Health Commun. 1999 Oct-Dec;4(4):311-24. doi: 10.1080/108107399126841.
2
Effects of communicating social comparison information on risk perceptions for colorectal cancer.传达社会比较信息对结直肠癌风险认知的影响。
J Health Commun. 2006 Jun;11(4):391-407. doi: 10.1080/10810730600671870.
3
Manipulating perceptions of colorectal cancer threat: implications for screening intentions and behaviors.操控对结直肠癌威胁的认知:对筛查意愿和行为的影响。
J Health Commun. 2003 May-Jun;8(3):213-28. doi: 10.1080/10810730305684.
4
Modifying attributions of colorectal cancer risk.修改结直肠癌风险的归因。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Apr;13(4):560-6.
5
Colorectal cancer screening among men and women in the United States.美国男性和女性的结直肠癌筛查
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007 Jan-Feb;16(1):57-65. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0131.
6
Colorectal cancer test use--Maryland, 2002-2006.2002 - 2006年马里兰州的结直肠癌检测使用情况
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2007 Sep 14;56(36):932-6.
7
Colorectal cancer screening behavior in women attending screening mammography: longitudinal trends and predictors.接受乳腺钼靶筛查的女性的结直肠癌筛查行为:纵向趋势及预测因素
Womens Health Issues. 2005 Nov-Dec;15(6):249-57. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2005.06.001.
8
Intention to be screened over time for colorectal cancer in male automotive workers.男性汽车工人随时间推移进行结直肠癌筛查的意愿。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Apr;12(4):339-49.
9
Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences.向女性告知其患乳腺癌的风险:真相与后果。
Health Commun. 2001;13(2):205-26. doi: 10.1207/S15327027HC1302_5.
10
Validation of self-reported history of colorectal cancer screening.自我报告的结直肠癌筛查病史的验证。
Can Fam Physician. 2007 Jul;53(7):1192-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Direct-to-consumer self-tests sold in the UK in 2023: cross sectional review of information on intended use, instructions for use, and post-test decision making.2023年在英国销售的直接面向消费者的自检产品:对预期用途、使用说明和检测后决策信息的横断面审查
BMJ. 2025 Jul 23;390:e085546. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2025-085546.
2
Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.《让数字有意义:健康领域概率沟通的循证综述》的范围、方法及概述性研究结果:一项系统综述
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255334. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255334. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
3
How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 1: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.
点(单概率)任务如何受到概率格式的影响,第1部分:使数字有意义的系统评价
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255333. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255333. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
4
How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.点(单概率)任务如何受到概率格式的影响,第二部分:一项使数字有意义的系统综述。
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255337. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255337. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
5
Understanding test accuracy research: a test consequence graphic.理解测试准确性研究:测试结果图表
Diagn Progn Res. 2018 Feb 1;2:2. doi: 10.1186/s41512-017-0023-0. eCollection 2018.
6
Testing Map Features Designed to Convey the Uncertainty of Cancer Risk: Insights Gained From Assessing Judgments of Information Adequacy and Communication Goals.测试旨在传达癌症风险不确定性的地图特征:从评估信息充分性判断和沟通目标中获得的见解。
Sci Commun. 2015 Feb;37(1):59-88. doi: 10.1177/1075547014565908.
7
Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.分娩模式对理解2型糖尿病基因组风险的影响。
Public Health Genomics. 2014;17(2):95-104. doi: 10.1159/000358413. Epub 2014 Feb 27.
8
Making decisions in a complex information environment: evidential preference and information we trust.在复杂信息环境中做决策:证据偏好与我们所信赖的信息。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S3-S7. Epub 2013 Dec 6.
9
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.使用替代统计格式来呈现风险和风险降低情况。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;2011(3):CD006776. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pub2.
10
"I know what you told me, but this is what I think:" perceived risk of Alzheimer disease among individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based risk estimate.“我知道你告诉过我,但这是我的想法:”那些能准确回忆起基于遗传风险评估的人对阿尔茨海默病风险的感知。
Genet Med. 2010 Apr;12(4):219-27. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181cef9e1.