Uncertain Futures: Individual Risk and Social Context in Decision-Making in Cancer Screening.

Department of Clinical Sciences Division of Ethics & Health Policy University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, USA.
Health Risk & Society (Impact Factor: 1.13). 04/2010; 12(2):101-117. DOI: 10.1080/13698571003637048
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A core logic of cancer control and prevention, like much in public health, turns on the notion of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Population-level data are increasingly used to develop risk profiles, or estimates, that clinicians and the consumer public may use to guide individual decisions about cancer screening. Individual risk perception forms a piece of a larger social economy of decision-making and choice that makes population screening possible. Individual decision-making depends on accessing and interpreting available clinical information, filtered through the lens of personal values and both cognitive and affective behavioral processes. That process is also mediated by changing social roles and interpersonal relationships. This paper begins to elucidate the influence of this "social context" within the complexity of cancer screening. Reflecting on current work in risk and health, I consider how ethnographic narrative methods can enrich this model.

Download full-text


Available from: Simon J Craddock Lee, Feb 17, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This editorial discusses nine papers concerned with health risk screening, and two papers reporting original research on risk management for children and adolescents. Five of the screening papers were published in a previous issue of Health, Risk & Society (Vol. 12, No. 1) along with an analytic editorial. This issue (Vol. 12, No. 2) contains an annexe with four additional screening papers plus a second editorial covering all nine papers. The papers illustrate the increasing scope of screening applications ‘from the cradle to the grave’. They cover risk screening for Down's syndrome (Gross 2010), child welfare and protection (Munro 2010, Parton 2010), Chlamydia (Balfe 2010), mental health service user violence (Langan 2010), Huntingdon's disease (Leontini 2010), coronary heart disease (Peckham and Hann 2010), cancer (Craddock Lee 2010), and dementia (Milne 2010). The screening papers fall into two strands: one questioning the utility of current systems (Langan 2010, Milne 2010, Munro 2010, Parton 2010, Peckham and Hann 2010); the other presenting original findings concerning the perspectives of eligible candidates (Balfe 2010, Craddock Lee 2010, Gross 2010, Leontini 2010). The two papers concerned with children and adolescents, published in the second part of the present issue, also consider risk perspectives, with particular reference to cultural comparisons. These papers focus on attitudes to and knowledge about sexual health in relation to uncertainty about the future (Davis and Niebes-Davis 2010), and parental views about children's exposure to environmental pollution (Dabrowska and Wismer 2010).
    Health Risk & Society 04/2010; 12(2):81-84. DOI:10.1080/13698571003632460 · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies suggest that learning a DNA-test-result has no direct impact on the medical-decisions and psychological well-being of counselees. Their perception, especially their recollections and interpretations of their cancer-risks and heredity, predict and/or mediate this impact. These studies were criticized for their small range of predictors, mediators, outcomes and contextual factors. We studied the short-term impact of DNA-testing with an extended model. Three months after disclosure of BRCA1/2-test-results, we sent counselees a questionnaire about their perception, medical and psychological outcomes, and medical, familial and psychological contexts. 248 affected women participated; 30 had received pathogenic-mutations, 16 unclassified-variants and 202 uninformative-results. The actually communicated genetic-information and the contextual variables predicted the counselees' perception, but did not directly predict any outcomes. The counselees' perception predicted and/or completely mediated the counselees' medical intentions and behavior, physical and psychological life-changes, stigma, mastery, negativity and cancer-worries. Short-term distress was related to the perception not only of their own risks, but also of their relatives' risks and heredity-likelihood. Effect sizes were medium to large. The outcomes of DNA-testing were better predicted by the counselees' perception than by the actually given genetic-information. We recommend genetic-counselors to have tailored, interactive dialogues about the counselees' perception.
    Patient Education and Counseling 06/2011; 86(2):239-51. DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.017 · 2.60 Impact Factor
Show more