Risk perception and psychological morbidity in men at elevated risk for prostate cancer

Trust and subjective knowledge influence perceived risk of lead exposure

Lead exposure is a persistent environmental hazard that poses risks to human health. But motivating protective action is challenging with this low visibility hazard whose health effects are often subtle and chronic. Higher risk perception is generally associated with taking protective measures, so public health efforts prioritize risk messaging. Yet, little is known about perceptions of lead exposure risk among the U.S. public. Using cross-sectional data from a national survey of 1035 U.S. residents, we measured the role of trust in government management of lead and subjective knowledge about lead as predictors of perceived risk of lead exposure, controlling for demographic and environmental factors. We also assessed if subjective knowledge moderated the relationship between trust and perceived risk. Our results reveal positive relationships between trust in government management of lead, subjective knowledge about lead, and risk perception, which we attribute in part to the important role government agencies play in secondary prevention, or communicating the risks of environmental lead exposure. We also found that younger people and people living in a house built before lead paint regulations passed in 1978 perceived higher lead risks. Our findings suggest that general communication about lead risks should aim to increase people's subjective knowledge in a consistent and balanced way that improves trust in government messengers.

Appraising risk in active surveillance of localized prostate cancer

Objectives

Men diagnosed with low‐risk prostate cancer are typically eligible for active surveillance of their cancer, involving monitoring for cancer progression and making judgements about the risks of prostate cancer against those of active intervention. Our study examined how risk for prostate cancer is perceived and experienced by patients undergoing active surveillance with their clinicians, how risk is communicated in clinical consultations, and the implications for treatment and care.

Method

Participants were nine patients and three clinicians from a university hospital urology clinic. A staged, qualitative, multi‐method data collection approach was undertaken, comprising: observations of consultations; patient and clinician interviews; and patient surveys. The three data sets were analysed separately using thematic analysis and then integrated to give a comprehensive view of patient and clinician views.

Results

Thirty data points (eight patient surveys; 10 observations of consultations between patients and clinicians; 10 patient interviews; and two clinician interviews) combined to create a detailed picture of how patients perceived and appraised risk, in three themes of “Making sense of risk”, “Talking about risk” and “Responding to risk”.

Conclusion

Effective risk communication needs to be finely tuned and timed to individual patient's priorities and information requirements. A structured information exchange process that identifies patients' priorities, and details key moments in risk assessment, so that complexities of risk are discussed in ways that are meaningful to patients, may benefit patient care. These findings could inform the development of patient‐centric risk assessment procedures and service delivery models in prostate cancer care more broadly.

Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception

Decades of research identify risk perception as a largely intuitive and affective construct, in contrast to the more deliberative assessments of probability and consequences that form the foundation of risk assessment. However, a review of the literature reveals that many of the risk perception measures employed in survey research with human subjects are either generic in nature, not capturing any particular affective, probabilistic, or consequential dimension of risk; or focused solely on judgments of probability. The goal of this research was to assess a multidimensional measure of risk perception across multiple hazards to identify a measure that will be broadly useful for assessing perceived risk moving forward. Our results support the idea of risk perception being multidimensional, but largely a function of individual affective reactions to the hazard. We also find that our measure of risk perception holds across multiple types of hazards, ranging from those that are behavioral in nature (e.g., health and safety behaviors), to those that are technological (e.g., pollution), or natural (e.g., extreme weather). We suggest that a general, unidimensional measure of risk may accurately capture one's perception of the severity of the consequences, and the discrete emotions that are felt in response to those potential consequences. However, such a measure is not likely to capture the perceived probability of experiencing the outcomes, nor will it be as useful at understanding one's motivation to take mitigation action.