University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge UK.
Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Jan;103(1):83-95. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.010. Epub 2019 Aug 11.
To synthesize the literature on the effect of provision of personalised cancer risk information to individuals at population level risk on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses.
A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of articles published from 01/01/2000 to 01/07/2017.
We included 23 studies. Immediately after provision of risk information 87% of individuals were able to recall the absolute risk estimate. Less than half believed that to be their risk, with up to 71% believing their risk to be higher than the estimate. Provision of risk information increased accuracy of perceived absolute risk immediately after risk information compared with no information (pooled RR 4.16 (95%CI 1.28-13.49), 3 studies). There was no significant effect on comparative risk accuracy (pooled RR 1.39 (0.72-2.69), 2 studies) and either no change or a reduction in cancer worry, anxiety and fear.
These findings highlight the complex cognitive processes involved in the conceptualisation of risk.
Individuals who appear to understand and are able to recall risk information most likely do not believe it reflects their own risk.
综合分析人群癌症风险水平个体获得个性化癌症风险信息对风险感知准确性和心理反应的影响。
系统综述和 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2017 年 7 月 1 日发表的文章的随机效应荟萃分析。
共纳入 23 项研究。风险信息提供后立即，87%的个体能够回忆起绝对风险估计值。不到一半的人认为这是他们的风险，多达 71%的人认为他们的风险高于估计值。与无信息相比，风险信息的提供能立即提高对感知绝对风险的准确性（汇总 RR 4.16（95%CI 1.28-13.49），3 项研究）。对比较风险准确性没有显著影响（汇总 RR 1.39（0.72-2.69），2 项研究），并且癌症担忧、焦虑和恐惧要么没有变化，要么减少。
这些发现强调了概念化风险所涉及的复杂认知过程。
那些似乎理解并能够回忆起风险信息的个体最不可能相信这反映了他们自己的风险。
