Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17986069›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2007

Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviours in a US population survey.

Paul K J Han, Richard P Moser, William M P Klein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Interventions to Engage Affective Forecasting in Health-Related Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. How Are Perceived Ambiguity and Risk Beliefs Related? Evidence From Longitudinal and Daily Diary Data.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Bridging the ICT Revolution and Communication Inequality: Lessons for Cancer Survivors.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Antecedents and Consequences of Information Overload in the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  15. Evidence that perceptions of and tolerance for medical ambiguity are distinct constructs: An analysis of nationally representative US data.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Effects of Media Exposure to Conflicting Information About Mammography: Results From a Population-based Survey Experiment.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paul K J HanDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. hanp@mail.nih.gov
Richard P Moser
William M P Klein

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HG999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth information reaching the public today is often characterized by what decision theorists have termed 'ambiguity'- i.e. uncertainty regarding the information's reliability, credibility or adequacy. This is a critical problem, as growing research suggests that ambiguity has important effects-promoting pessimistic judgments about risks and potential outcomes of risk-reducing behaviours, and lowering adoption of these behaviours. However, little is known about the public's perceptions of ambiguity in the health information domain, the effects of these perceptions, and the factors that influence these effects.

objectiveTo examine associations between perceived ambiguity regarding cancer prevention recommendations and prevention-related perceptions and behaviours, and to explore how these associations differ by cancer type. STUDY DESIGN AND

participantsCross-sectional analysis of data on 4,070 adults participating in the 2005 US Health Information National Trends Survey. MAIN VARIABLES AND OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined associations between perceived ambiguity about colon, skin and lung cancer prevention recommendations and two main outcome variables: (i) risk-related cognitions (perceived cancer risk and preventability, cancer-related worry) and (ii) risk-modifying behaviours (colon cancer screening, sunscreen use and smoking abstinence).

resultsPerceived ambiguity was inversely associated with perceptions of the preventability of all three cancers, and with cancer-specific risk-modifying behaviours including sigmoidoscopy-colonoscopy testing, sunscreen use and smoking abstinence. Relationships with cancer risk perceptions and worry varied across different cancer types.

conclusionsPerceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations has significant and predictable associations with cancer prevention-related cognitions and behaviours, and some associations differ by cancer type. These findings have implications for future research and communication efforts.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthHealth BehaviorAdultAgedColonic NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRisk FactorsSkin NeoplasmsSunscreening AgentsSunscreening Agents

Identifiers

PMID17986069
PMCPMC4198390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.