Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35025940›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Analysis of the components of cancer risk perception and links with intention and behaviour: A UK-based study.

Christiane Riedinger, Jackie Campbell, William M P Klein, Rebecca A Ferrer, Juliet A Usher-Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Cancer Risk Perceptions in South Australia: A Descriptive Analysis of a Population Survey.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Development and Validation of the COVID-19 Worries and Fears Scale.International journal of public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Christiane RiedingerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Prevention Group, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge Clinical School, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9310-9894
Jackie CampbellFaculty of Health, Education and Society, University of Northampton, Northampton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1456-7994
William M P KleinBehavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Rebecca A FerrerBehavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1069-9989
Juliet A Usher-SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Prevention Group, Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge Clinical School, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-2531

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21464Cancer Research UK C55650/A21464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk perception refers to how individuals interpret their susceptibility to threats, and has been hypothesised as an important predictor of intentions and behaviour in many theories of health behaviour change. However, its components, optimal measurement, and effects are not yet fully understood. The TRIRISK model, developed in the US, conceptualises risk perception as deliberative, affective and experiential components. In this study, we aimed to assess the replicability of the TRIRISK model in a UK sample by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), explore the inherent factor structure of risk perception in the UK sample by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and assess the associations of EFA-based factors with intentions to change behaviour and subsequent behaviour change. Data were derived from an online randomised controlled trial assessing cancer risk perception using the TRIRISK instrument and intention and lifestyle measures before and after communication of cancer risk. In the CFA analysis, the TRIRISK model of risk perception did not provide a good fit for the UK data. A revised model developed using EFA consisted of two separate "numerical" and "self-reflective" factors of deliberative risk perception, and a third factor combining affective with a subset of experiential items. This model provided a better fit to the data when cross-validated. Using multivariable regression analysis, we found that the self-reflective and affective-experiential factors of the model identified in this study were reliable predictors of intentions to prevent cancer. There were no associations of any of the risk perception factors with behaviour change. This study confirms that risk perception is clearly a multidimensional construct, having identified self-reflective risk perception as a new distinct component with predictive validity for intention. Furthermore, we highlight the practical implications of our findings for the design of interventions incorporating risk perception aimed at behaviour change in the context of cancer prevention.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorIntentionPerceptionFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansLife StyleNeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRiskUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID35025940
PMCPMC8757986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.