Cargando…

Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of articles published from 01/0...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bayne, Max, Fairey, Madi, Silarova, Barbora, Griffin, Simon J., Sharp, Stephen J., Klein, William M.P., Sutton, Stephen, Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6919334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31439435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.010
_version_ 1783480744143749120
author Bayne, Max
Fairey, Madi
Silarova, Barbora
Griffin, Simon J.
Sharp, Stephen J.
Klein, William M.P.
Sutton, Stephen
Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
author_facet Bayne, Max
Fairey, Madi
Silarova, Barbora
Griffin, Simon J.
Sharp, Stephen J.
Klein, William M.P.
Sutton, Stephen
Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
author_sort Bayne, Max
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of articles published from 01/01/2000 to 01/07/2017. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the complex cognitive processes involved in the conceptualisation of risk. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Individuals who appear to understand and are able to recall risk information most likely do not believe it reflects their own risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6919334
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69193342020-01-01 Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis Bayne, Max Fairey, Madi Silarova, Barbora Griffin, Simon J. Sharp, Stephen J. Klein, William M.P. Sutton, Stephen Usher-Smith, Juliet A. Patient Educ Couns Article OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of articles published from 01/01/2000 to 01/07/2017. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the complex cognitive processes involved in the conceptualisation of risk. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Individuals who appear to understand and are able to recall risk information most likely do not believe it reflects their own risk. Elsevier 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6919334/ /pubmed/31439435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.010 Text en © 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Bayne, Max
Fairey, Madi
Silarova, Barbora
Griffin, Simon J.
Sharp, Stephen J.
Klein, William M.P.
Sutton, Stephen
Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6919334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31439435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.010
work_keys_str_mv AT baynemax effectofinterventionsincludingprovisionofpersonalisedcancerriskinformationonaccuracyofriskperceptionandpsychologicalresponsesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT faireymadi effectofinterventionsincludingprovisionofpersonalisedcancerriskinformationonaccuracyofriskperceptionandpsychologicalresponsesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT silarovabarbora effectofinterventionsincludingprovisionofpersonalisedcancerriskinformationonaccuracyofriskperceptionandpsychologicalresponsesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT griffinsimonj effectofinterventionsincludingprovisionofpersonalisedcancerriskinformationonaccuracyofriskperceptionandpsychologicalresponsesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sharpstephenj effectofinterventionsincludingprovisionofpersonalisedcancerriskinformationonaccuracyofriskperceptionandpsychologicalresponsesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kleinwilliammp effectofinterventionsincludingprovisionofpersonalisedcancerriskinformationonaccuracyofriskperceptionandpsychologicalresponsesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT suttonstephen effectofinterventionsincludingprovisionofpersonalisedcancerriskinformationonaccuracyofriskperceptionandpsychologicalresponsesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ushersmithjulieta effectofinterventionsincludingprovisionofpersonalisedcancerriskinformationonaccuracyofriskperceptionandpsychologicalresponsesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis