ArticleCMAJ open
Attitude to health risk in the Canadian population: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sociodemographic and Health-Risk Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Preferences and Willingness to Pay in Singapore: Discrete Choice Experiment.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Nomenclature revision may mitigate potential overtreatment of incidental finding of coronary calcium on chest computed tomography.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025Article
- Effects of health-related dispositions on citizens' appraisals toward the COVID-19 pandemic and protective behavior.PloS one · 2024Article
- Elective orthopaedic surgery and COVID-19: knowledge and perceptions of patients in a global pandemic.Singapore medical journal · 2021Article
- Beyond rationality: Expanding the practice of shared decision making in modern medicine.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Review
- Are health risk attitude and general risk attitude associated with healthcare utilization, costs and working ability? Results from the German KORA FF4 cohort study.Health economics review · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRisk is a ubiquitous part of health care. Understanding how people respond to risks is important for predicting how populations make health decisions. Our objective was to seek preliminary descriptive insights into the attitude to health risk in the Canadian population and factors associated with heterogeneity in risk attitude.
methodsWe used a large market-research panel to survey (in English and French) a representative sample of the Canadian general population that reflected the age, sex and geography of the population. The survey included the Health-Risk Attitude Scale, which predicts how a person resolves risky health decisions related to treatment, prevention of disease and health-related behaviour. In addition, we assessed participants' numeracy and risk understanding, as well as income band and level of education. We summarized the responses, and we explored the independent associations between demographics, numeracy, risk understanding and risk attitude in multivariable models.
resultsOf 6780 respondents, 4949 (73.0%) were averse to health risks; however, but there was considerable heterogeneity in the magnitude of risk aversion. We found significant gradients of risk averse attitudes with increasing age and being female (p < 0.001) using the multivariable model. French-speaking participants appeared to be more risk averse than those who were English-speaking (p < 0.001), as were individuals scoring higher on the Subjective Numeracy Scale (p < 0.001). INTERPREATION: In general, Canadians were averse to health risks, but we found that a sizeable, identifiable group of risk takers exists. Heterogeneity in preferences for risk can explain variations in health care utilization in the context of patient-centred care. Understanding risk preference heterogeneity can help guide policy and assist in patient-physician decisions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.