This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lipkus, I. M. Articles by Rimer, B. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lipkus, I. M. Articles by Rimer, B. K.

Communicating Breast Cancer Risks to Women Using Different Formats¹

Duke University Medical Center, Cancer Prevention, Detection, and Control Research Program, Risk Communication Laboratory, Durham, North Carolina 27701 [I. M. L.]; Colby College, Waterville, Maine 04901 [W. M. P. K.]; and The National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 [B. K. R.]

Using a pre-post test design with a baseline, laboratory, and a 6-month follow-up, we communicated women’s objective breast cancer risks, based on the Gail Model, using two formats: (a) range of risks (e.g., risk of breast cancer can be as low as 1% and as high as 5%); and (b) as a point estimate (e.g., your risk of breast cancer is 3%). We examined how these presentations individually and jointly affected women’s perceived lifetime breast cancer risks. Overall, providing risk estimates either as a range of risks or as a point estimate lowered women’s perceived lifetime risks compared with women who did not get information presented this way shortly after receipt of this information relative to baseline. At the 6-month follow-up, perceptions of lifetime risks generally returned to their baseline values. Overall, women viewed their risk feedback, whether presented as a point estimate or as a range of risks, as equally credible, trustworthy, accurate, and personally relevant. These results suggest that women evaluate risk feedback containing either point estimates or range of risks as equally acceptable. Both formats lead to short-term reductions in perceived risk (i.e., greater accuracy).

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W Osterlie, M Solbjor, J-A Skolbekken, S Hofvind, A R Saetnan, and S Forsmo Challenges of informed choice in organised screening J. Med. Ethics, September 1, 2008; 34(9): e5 - e5. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Hay, E. Shuk, G. Cruz, and J. Ostroff Thinking Through Cancer Risk: Characterizing Smokers' Process of Risk Determination Qual Health Res, October 1, 2005; 15(8): 1074 - 1085. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. T. Chlebowski, N. Col, E. P. Winer, D. E. Collyar, S. R. Cummings, V. G. Vogel III, H. J. Burstein, A. Eisen, I. Lipkus, and D. G. Pfister American Society of Clinical Oncology Technology Assessment of Pharmacologic Interventions for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Including Tamoxifen, Raloxifene, and Aromatase Inhibition J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2002; 20(15): 3328 - 3343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]