IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i2p157-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Literacy and Cancer Risk Perception: Implications for Genomic Risk Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Noel T. Brewer

    (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, ntba@unc.edu)

  • Janice P. Tzeng

    (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC)

  • Sarah E. Lillie

    (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC)

  • Alrick S. Edwards

    (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC)

  • Jeffrey M. Peppercorn

    (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC)

  • Barbara K. Rimer

    (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC)

Abstract

Background. As new genomic technology expands the number of medical tests available to physicians and patients, identifying gaps in our understanding of how best to communicate risk is increasingly important. We examined how health literacy informs breast cancer survivors' understanding of and meaning assigned to recurrence risks yielded by genomic tests. Methods. Study participants were posttreatment female breast cancer survivors ( N =163 ) recruited at a university breast cancer clinic. We assessed their health literacy (using REALM) and their interpretation of hypothetical recurrence risk results from a genomic test, presented in several verbal and numerical formats. Analyses controlled for women's objective recurrence risk, age, income, and race. Results. Women with lower health literacy gave higher mean estimates of recurrence risk for a hypothetical group of women with early-stage breast cancer than did women with higher health literacy (52% v. 30%, P

Suggested Citation

  • Noel T. Brewer & Janice P. Tzeng & Sarah E. Lillie & Alrick S. Edwards & Jeffrey M. Peppercorn & Barbara K. Rimer, 2009. "Health Literacy and Cancer Risk Perception: Implications for Genomic Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 157-166, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:157-166
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08327111
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08327111?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    2. Erev, Ido & Cohen, Brent L., 1990. "Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sara Maria Oliveira Pinto & Sílvia Maria Alves Caldeira Berenguer & José Carlos Amado Martins, 2013. "Cancer, Health Literacy, and Happiness: Perspectives from Patients under Chemotherapy," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-8, September.
    2. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:116-123 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Vieri Lastrucci & Chiara Lorini & Marco Del Riccio & Eleonora Gori & Fabrizio Chiesi & Andrea Moscadelli & Beatrice Zanella & Sara Boccalini & Angela Bechini & Francesco Puggelli & Renzo Berti & Paolo, 2021. "The Role of Health Literacy in COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors and Infection Risk Perception: Evidence from a Population-Based Sample of Essential Frontline Workers during the Lockdown in the Province o," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-14, December.
    5. S. Gatobu & J. F. Arocha & L. Hoffman-Goetz, 2014. "Numeracy and Health Numeracy Among Chinese and Kenyan Immigrants to Canada," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    2. Juanchich, Marie & Sirota, Miroslav & Butler, Christina Lea, 2012. "The perceived functions of linguistic risk quantifiers and their effect on risk, negativity perception and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 72-81.
    3. Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Allen Andrade & Joseph Sharit & Jorge G. Ruiz, 2015. "Is Patients’ Numeracy Related to Physical and Mental Health?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 501-511, May.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Hovanov, Nikolai & Yudaeva, Maria & Hovanov, Kirill, 2009. "Multicriteria estimation of probabilities on basis of expert non-numeric, non-exact and non-complete knowledge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 857-863, June.
    6. Honekopp, Johannes, 2003. "Precision of probability information and prominence of outcomes: A description and evaluation of decisions under uncertainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 124-138, January.
    7. Ruttan, Rachel L. & Nordgren, Loran F., 2016. "The strength to face the facts: Self-regulation defends against defensive information processing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 86-98.
    8. Dickerson, Andy & Green, Francis, 2012. "Fears and realisations of employment insecurity," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 198-210.
    9. Robert N. Collins & David R. Mandel, 2019. "Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(6), pages 683-695, November.
    10. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Brun, Wibecke, 1999. "The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 155-190, November.
    11. Jessica S. Ancker & Elke U. Weber & Rita Kukafka, 2011. "Effect of Arrangement of Stick Figures on Estimates of Proportion in Risk Graphics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 143-150, January.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:2:p:202-211 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Piercey, M. David, 2009. "Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 330-341, March.
    14. Jessica S. Ancker & Elke U. Weber & Rita Kukafka, 2011. "Effects of Game-Like Interactive Graphics on Risk Perceptions and Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 130-142, January.
    15. Collins, Dorothy L. & Street Jr., Richard L., 2009. "A dialogic model of conversations about risk: Coordinating perceptions and achieving quality decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1506-1512, April.
    16. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 265-271, June.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Michael Dietrich, 2010. "Efficiency and profitability: a panel data analysis of UK manufacturing firms, 1993-2007," Working Papers 2010003, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2010.
    19. Jean Baratgin & Guy Politzer, 2006. "Is the mind Bayesian? The case for agnosticism," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 5(1), pages 1-38, June.
    20. de Bruin, Wandi Bruine & Fischhoff, Baruch & Millstein, Susan G. & Halpern-Felsher, Bonnie L., 2000. "Verbal and Numerical Expressions of Probability: "It's a Fifty-Fifty Chance"," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 115-131, January.
    21. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    22. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    23. Bradley J. Stastny & Paul E. Lehner, 2018. "Comparative evaluation of the forecast accuracy of analysis reports and a prediction market," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(2), pages 202-211, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:157-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.