Kaufman Annette R, Persoskie Alexander, Twesten Jenny, Bromberg Julie
Tobacco Control Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Tob Control. 2020 Jan;29(Suppl 1):s50-s58. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054005. Epub 2018 Feb 6.
To describe the characteristics of risk perception measures used in tobacco control research and to evaluate whether these measures incorporate measurement suggestions put forward by risk perception measurement scholars.
Three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO and Web of Science) were searched in March 2015 for published English language peer-reviewed articles measuring tobacco risk perceptions (n=2557). The search string included terms related to tobacco products, perceptions and risk.
Three coders independently coded abstracts for initial inclusion. In total, 441 articles met the initial inclusion criteria, and 100 were randomly selected for a full-text review.
A codebook was developed and tested through a training phase. Three coders independently coded the characteristics of each article (eg, population), multi-item measure (eg, validity) and item (eg, likelihood, affect, health outcome). Fifty-four articles, 33 measures and 239 items were coded.
Twenty-one articles had a multi-item risk perception measure, and 12 articles had one risk perception item. Many of the items asked about general health outcomes (36%), did not specify the person for whom risk was being judged (44%; eg, self, average person) or did not specify the conditions of use (27%; eg, the product used, intensity of use).
There is little consistency across risk perception measures in tobacco research. There may be value in developing and disseminating best practices for assessing tobacco risk perceptions. A set of risk perception consensus measures may also benefit researchers in the field to help them consistently apply measurement recommendations.
描述烟草控制研究中使用的风险认知测量方法的特点，并评估这些方法是否纳入了风险认知测量学者提出的测量建议。
2015年3月在三个数据库（PubMed、PsycINFO和Web of Science）中检索已发表的英文同行评审文章，这些文章测量了烟草风险认知（n = 2557）。检索词包括与烟草产品、认知和风险相关的术语。
三名编码员独立对摘要进行初步纳入编码。共有441篇文章符合初步纳入标准，随机选择100篇进行全文评审。
通过培训阶段开发并测试了一个编码手册。三名编码员独立对每篇文章的特征（如人群）、多项目测量（如效度）和项目（如可能性、影响、健康结果）进行编码。对54篇文章、33项测量和239个项目进行了编码。
21篇文章有一个多项目风险认知测量，12篇文章有一个风险认知项目。许多项目询问的是一般健康结果（36%），没有指明被判断风险的对象（44%；如自我、普通人），或者没有指明使用条件（27%；如使用的产品、使用强度）。
烟草研究中的风险认知测量方法几乎没有一致性。制定和传播评估烟草风险认知的最佳实践可能有价值。一套风险认知共识测量方法也可能使该领域的研究人员受益，帮助他们始终如一地应用测量建议。
