Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32415830›Full record

ArticleAnnals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine2021

Priority of Risk (But Not Perceived Magnitude of Risk) Predicts Improved Sun-Protection Behavior Following Genetic Counseling for Familial Melanoma.

Jennifer M Taber, Lisa G Aspinwall, Danielle M Drummond, Tammy K Stump, Wendy Kohlmann, Marjan Champine, Pamela Cassidy, Sancy A Leachman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Interactive Beliefs about Genes and Behavior Predict Improved Sun Protection Following Melanoma Genetic Counseling.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2022
    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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer M TaberDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH.
Lisa G AspinwallDepartment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Danielle M DrummondDepartment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Tammy K StumpDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Wendy KohlmannHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Marjan ChampineHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Pamela CassidyOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
Sancy A LeachmanOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
University of Utah · USOregon Health & Science University · USKent State University · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH CENTER FOR CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE-UL1: BPCAUL1RR025764 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI MCCLAIN, DONALD A. · 2008 to 2011
$19.4M
University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science-UL1UL1TR000105 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI MCCLAIN, DONALD A. · 2012 to 2013
$5.1M
Impact of Melanoma Genetic Testing on Health Cognitions and Prevention BehaviorsR01CA158322 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ASPINWALL, LISA G, LEACHMAN, SANCY ANN · 2011 to 2016
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000105NCI NIH HHS N01 PC035141NCI NIH HHS R01 CA158322NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025764
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding multiple components of risk perceptions is important because perceived risk predicts engagement in prevention behaviors. PURPOSE: To examine how multiple components of risk perceptions (perceived magnitude of and worry about risk, prioritization of the management of one's risk) changed following genetic counseling with or without test reporting, and to examine which of these components prospectively predicted improvements in sun-protection behavior 1 year later.

methodsA prospective, nonrandomized study design was used. Participants were 114 unaffected members of melanoma-prone families who (i) underwent genetic testing for a CDKN2A/p16 mutation (n = 69) or (ii) were at comparably elevated risk based on family history and underwent genetic counseling but not testing (no-test controls, n = 45). Participants reported risk perception components and sun-protection behavior at baseline, immediately following counseling, and 1 month and 1 year after counseling.

resultsFactor analysis indicated three risk components. Carriers reported increased perceived magnitude and priority of risk, but not cancer worry. No-test controls showed no changes in any risk perception. Among noncarriers, priority of risk remained high at all assessments, whereas magnitude of risk and cancer worry decreased. Of the three risk components, greater priority of risk uniquely predicted improved self-reported sun protection 1 year post-counseling.

conclusionsPriority of risk (i) seems to be a component of risk perceptions distinguishable from magnitude of risk and cancer worry, (ii) may be an important predictor of daily prevention behavior, and (iii) remained elevated 1 year following genetic counseling only for participants who received a positive melanoma genetic test result.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingRisk Reduction BehaviorAdolescentAdultAgedCutaneous Malignant MelanomaEnvironmental ExposureFemaleGenes, p16Genetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedMutationGenetic counselingGenetic testingMelanomaPerceived riskPriority of riskSun protection

Identifiers

PMID32415830
PMCPMC7880221
OpenAlexW3025615839

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.