Article

Risky feelings: why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%.

Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, USA.
Patient Education and Counseling (Impact Factor: 2.6). 12/2010; 81 Suppl:S87-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.041
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Emotion plays a strong role in the perception of risk information but is frequently underemphasized in the decision-making and communication literature. We sought to discuss and put into context several lines of research that have explored the links between emotion and risk perceptions.
In this article, we provide a focused, "state of the science" review of research revealing the ways that emotion, or affect, influences people's cancer-related decisions. We identify illustrative experimental research studies that demonstrate the role of affect in people's estimates of cancer risk, their decisions between different cancer treatments, their perceptions of the chance of cancer recurrence, and their reactions to different methods of presenting risk information.
These studies show that people have strong affective reactions to cancer risk information and that the way risk information is presented often determines the emotional gist people take away from such communications.
Cancer researchers, educators and oncologists need to be aware that emotions are often more influential in decision making about cancer treatments and prevention behaviors than factual knowledge is.
Anticipating and assessing affective reactions is an essential step in the evaluation and improvement of cancer risk communications.

Full-text

Available from: Brian Zikmund-Fisher, Jan 15, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
99 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We review decision making along the cancer continuum in the contemporary context of informed and shared decision making in which patients are encouraged to take a more active role in their health care. We discuss challenges to achieving informed and shared decision making, including cognitive limitations and emotional factors, but argue that understanding the mechanisms of decision making offers hope for improving decision support. Theoretical approaches to decision making that explain cognition, emotion, and their interaction are described, including classical psychophysical approaches, dual-process approaches that focus on conflicts between emotion versus cognition (or reason), and modern integrative approaches such as fuzzy-trace theory. In contrast to the earlier emphasis on rote use of numerical detail, modern approaches emphasize understanding the bottom-line gist of options (which encompasses emotion and other influences on meaning) and retrieving relevant social and moral values to apply to those gist representations. Finally, research on interventions to support better decision making in clinical settings is reviewed, drawing out implications for future research on decision making and cancer. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    American Psychologist 02/2015; 70(2):105-118. DOI:10.1037/a0036834 · 6.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rates of both unilateral (UM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) for unilateral early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) have been increasing since 2003. Recent studies suggest that this increase may be due to women choosing UM and CPM because of fear. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study to identify those factors influencing a woman's choice for more extensive surgery.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 09/2014; 22(2). DOI:10.1245/s10434-014-4033-7 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasing numbers of patients have direct access to laboratory test results outside of clinical consultations. This offers increased opportunities for both self-management of chronic conditions and advance preparation for clinic visits if patients are able to identify test results that are outside the reference ranges.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 08/2014; 16(8):e187. DOI:10.2196/jmir.3241 · 4.67 Impact Factor