个性化风险信息怀疑论的检验解释。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231162824
Erika A Waters, Jennifer M Taber, Nicole Ackermann, Julia Maki, Amy M McQueen, Laura D Scherer
{"title":"个性化风险信息怀疑论的检验解释。","authors":"Erika A Waters,&nbsp;Jennifer M Taber,&nbsp;Nicole Ackermann,&nbsp;Julia Maki,&nbsp;Amy M McQueen,&nbsp;Laura D Scherer","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231162824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The promise of precision medicine could be stymied if people do not accept the legitimacy of personalized risk information. We tested 4 explanations for skepticism of personalized diabetes risk information.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We recruited participants (<i>N</i> = 356; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 48.6 [<i>s</i> = 9.8], 85.1% women, 59.0% non-Hispanic white) from community locations (e.g., barbershops, churches) for a risk communication intervention. Participants received personalized information about their risk of developing diabetes and heart disease, stroke, colon cancer, and/or breast cancer (women). Then they completed survey items. We combined 2 items (recalled risk, perceived risk) to create a trichotomous risk skepticism variable (acceptance, overestimation, underestimation). Additional items assessed possible explanations for risk skepticism: 1) <i>information evaluation skills</i> (education, graph literacy, numeracy), 2<i>) motivated reasoning</i> (negative affect toward the information, spontaneous self-affirmation, information avoidance); 3) <i>Bayesian updating</i> (surprise), and 4) <i>personal relevance</i> (racial/ethnic identity). We used multinomial logistic regression for data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the participants, 18% believed that their diabetes risk was lower than the information provided, 40% believed their risk was higher, and 42% accepted the information. Information evaluation skills were not supported as a risk skepticism explanation. Motivated reasoning received some support; higher diabetes risk and more negative affect toward the information were associated with risk underestimation, but spontaneous self-affirmation and information avoidance were not moderators. For Bayesian updating, more surprise was associated with overestimation. For personal relevance, belonging to a marginalized racial/ethnic group was associated with underestimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are likely multiple cognitive, affective, and motivational explanations for risk skepticism. Understanding these explanations and developing interventions that address them will increase the effectiveness of precision medicine and facilitate its widespread implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 4","pages":"430-444"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164692/pdf/nihms-1877515.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information.\",\"authors\":\"Erika A Waters,&nbsp;Jennifer M Taber,&nbsp;Nicole Ackermann,&nbsp;Julia Maki,&nbsp;Amy M McQueen,&nbsp;Laura D Scherer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X231162824\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The promise of precision medicine could be stymied if people do not accept the legitimacy of personalized risk information. We tested 4 explanations for skepticism of personalized diabetes risk information.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We recruited participants (<i>N</i> = 356; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 48.6 [<i>s</i> = 9.8], 85.1% women, 59.0% non-Hispanic white) from community locations (e.g., barbershops, churches) for a risk communication intervention. Participants received personalized information about their risk of developing diabetes and heart disease, stroke, colon cancer, and/or breast cancer (women). Then they completed survey items. We combined 2 items (recalled risk, perceived risk) to create a trichotomous risk skepticism variable (acceptance, overestimation, underestimation). Additional items assessed possible explanations for risk skepticism: 1) <i>information evaluation skills</i> (education, graph literacy, numeracy), 2<i>) motivated reasoning</i> (negative affect toward the information, spontaneous self-affirmation, information avoidance); 3) <i>Bayesian updating</i> (surprise), and 4) <i>personal relevance</i> (racial/ethnic identity). We used multinomial logistic regression for data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the participants, 18% believed that their diabetes risk was lower than the information provided, 40% believed their risk was higher, and 42% accepted the information. Information evaluation skills were not supported as a risk skepticism explanation. Motivated reasoning received some support; higher diabetes risk and more negative affect toward the information were associated with risk underestimation, but spontaneous self-affirmation and information avoidance were not moderators. For Bayesian updating, more surprise was associated with overestimation. For personal relevance, belonging to a marginalized racial/ethnic group was associated with underestimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are likely multiple cognitive, affective, and motivational explanations for risk skepticism. Understanding these explanations and developing interventions that address them will increase the effectiveness of precision medicine and facilitate its widespread implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"430-444\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164692/pdf/nihms-1877515.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231162824\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231162824","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:如果人们不接受个性化风险信息的合法性,精准医疗的前景可能会受到阻碍。我们测试了对个性化糖尿病风险信息持怀疑态度的4种解释。方法:我们招募参与者(N = 356;法师= 48.6 [s = 9.8], 85.1%女性,59.0%非西班牙裔白人)来自社区场所(如理发店、教堂)进行风险沟通干预。参与者收到了关于他们患糖尿病、心脏病、中风、结肠癌和/或乳腺癌(女性)风险的个性化信息。然后他们完成调查项目。我们将两个项目(回忆风险,感知风险)结合起来,创造了一个三分法风险怀疑变量(接受,高估,低估)。附加项目评估了风险怀疑的可能解释:1)信息评估技能(教育,图形素养,计算能力),2)动机推理(对信息的负面影响,自发的自我肯定,信息回避);3)贝叶斯更新(惊喜)和4)个人相关性(种族/民族身份)。我们使用多项逻辑回归进行数据分析。结果:在参与者中,18%的人认为他们的糖尿病风险低于所提供的信息,40%的人认为他们的风险高于所提供的信息,42%的人接受了所提供的信息。信息评估技能不支持作为风险怀疑主义的解释。动机推理得到了一些支持;较高的糖尿病风险和对信息的负面影响与风险低估有关,但自发的自我肯定和信息回避不是调节因素。对于贝叶斯更新,更多的惊喜与高估有关。就个人而言,属于被边缘化的种族/族裔群体与被低估有关。结论:风险怀疑可能有多种认知、情感和动机解释。了解这些解释并制定解决这些问题的干预措施将提高精准医疗的有效性,并促进其广泛实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information.

Background: The promise of precision medicine could be stymied if people do not accept the legitimacy of personalized risk information. We tested 4 explanations for skepticism of personalized diabetes risk information.

Method: We recruited participants (N = 356; Mage = 48.6 [s = 9.8], 85.1% women, 59.0% non-Hispanic white) from community locations (e.g., barbershops, churches) for a risk communication intervention. Participants received personalized information about their risk of developing diabetes and heart disease, stroke, colon cancer, and/or breast cancer (women). Then they completed survey items. We combined 2 items (recalled risk, perceived risk) to create a trichotomous risk skepticism variable (acceptance, overestimation, underestimation). Additional items assessed possible explanations for risk skepticism: 1) information evaluation skills (education, graph literacy, numeracy), 2) motivated reasoning (negative affect toward the information, spontaneous self-affirmation, information avoidance); 3) Bayesian updating (surprise), and 4) personal relevance (racial/ethnic identity). We used multinomial logistic regression for data analysis.

Results: Of the participants, 18% believed that their diabetes risk was lower than the information provided, 40% believed their risk was higher, and 42% accepted the information. Information evaluation skills were not supported as a risk skepticism explanation. Motivated reasoning received some support; higher diabetes risk and more negative affect toward the information were associated with risk underestimation, but spontaneous self-affirmation and information avoidance were not moderators. For Bayesian updating, more surprise was associated with overestimation. For personal relevance, belonging to a marginalized racial/ethnic group was associated with underestimation.

Conclusion: There are likely multiple cognitive, affective, and motivational explanations for risk skepticism. Understanding these explanations and developing interventions that address them will increase the effectiveness of precision medicine and facilitate its widespread implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process. Multi-indication Evidence Synthesis in Oncology Health Technology Assessment: Meta-analysis Methods and Their Application to a Case Study of Bevacizumab. Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis-Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence. A Sequential Calibration Approach to Address Challenges of Repeated Calibration of a COVID-19 Model. A Longitudinal Study of the Association of Awareness of Disease Incurability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1