ArticleJournal of behavioral medicine2018
Reactions to online colorectal cancer risk estimates among a nationally representative sample of adults who have never been screened.
Article in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- Risk Ladder, Table, or Bulleted List? Identifying Formats That Effectively Communicate Personalized Risk and Risk Reduction Information for Multiple Diseases.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- A Tale of Two Diverse Qualtrics Samples: Information for Online Survey Researchers.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Predicting Colorectal Cancer Screening among Adults Who Have Never Been Screened: Testing the Interaction between Message Framing and Tailored Risk Feedback.Journal of health communication · 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
Abstract
Data on the public's reactions to online tailored colorectal cancer (CRC) risk estimates are sparse. We assessed among 560 men and women aged 50-75 with no CRC screening history reactions to online tailored CRC estimated comparative risk (i.e., self vs. other their age and sex). Assessed were reactions to estimate (i.e., repeating back estimate, match between perceived comparative risk and estimate, accuracy and usefulness of estimate, emotional reactions), risk appraisals and screening intentions. 73% of the sample accurately repeated back their estimate; the match between perceived comparative risk and the estimate was lowest among those informed of being at higher risk. Higher estimates were viewed as less useful and evoked more negative emotions. Viewing the estimate as more useful and experiencing more negative emotions were related with higher risk appraisals and, in turn, screening intentions. These data indicate that adults at higher comparative risk resist accepting a higher risk status.
Indexed as
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.