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
8 Reads
  • Source
    • "It is increasingly recognised that risk perception is complex, multi-dimensional, and incompletely understood, and that research has failed to reach consensus on a model for measuring risk perception [7-9]. Collins and Street [10, p1506] argue that risk perception is influenced by 'scientific, psychological, social, economic, and cultural factors' and that while clinicians are more likely to use 'analytic' reasoning, patients are more likely to use 'experiential' reasoning in risk judgements. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The perception of breast cancer risk held by women who have not had breast cancer, and who are at increased, but unexplained, familial risk of breast cancer is poorly described. This study aims to describe risk perception and how it is related to screening behaviour for these women. Methods Participants were recruited from a population-based sample (the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study - ABCFS). The ABCFS includes women diagnosed with breast cancer and their relatives. For this study, women without breast cancer with at least one first- or second-degree relative diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 were eligible unless a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation had been identified in their family. Data collection consisted of an audio recorded, semi-structured interview on the topic of breast cancer risk and screening decision-making. Data was analysed thematically. Results A total of 24 interviews were conducted, and saturation of the main themes was achieved. Women were classified into one of five groups: don't worry about cancer risk, but do screening; concerned about cancer risk, so do something; concerned about cancer risk, so why don't I do anything?; cancer inevitable; cancer unlikely. Conclusions The language and framework women use to describe their risk of breast cancer must be the starting point in attempts to enhance women's understanding of risk and their prevention behaviour.
    Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 09/2011; 9(1):7. DOI:10.1186/PREACCEPT-3415208745291659 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [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 more