Strategies to help inform colorectal cancer risk magnitudes

描述（由申请人提供）： 结直肠癌（CRC）筛查率继续低于最佳水平，以减少这种疾病的发病率，需要应用激励结构来激励筛查。越来越多的CRC风险的看法应该激励筛查。然而，不一致的研究结果表明，较高的感知CRC有时预测筛查，有时不是。不一致的发现可能是由于干预措施未能解决理解CRC风险所需的基本维度（Weinstein，1999）。这些方面包括：了解CRC的前兆、发生概率、后果以及预防或减少威胁的方法-最大的干预措施仅涉及这些组成部分中的一个或两个。因此，一项中心研究的目的是开发一种干预措施，解决风险的每个方面，并评估人们对每个方面的反应/理解如何与筛查CRC的意图相关。患CRC的可能性是最难传达的部分（Bogardus，1999）;但它构成了经常向公众传达的CRC风险的核心维度。可能性通常以数字表示，并且通常被视为精确的，包含“科学准确性和可信度”的“光环”。使用数字来表达可能性的缺点包括人们的数字技能和利用和感知小概率的能力。提出什么可能出现的主观小概率可能会适得其反，在激励CRC筛查。因此，第二个中心研究的目的是测试是否包括一个标准的显示的可能性信息的背景下的其他方面的风险确实减少动机屏幕，并开发和测试一种替代手段显示的可能性信息，旨在增加而不是减少动机屏幕通过添加一个图形显示的风险概率。这项研究构成了重要的初步步骤，以更充分地了解如何最好地全面传达CRC风险，以影响筛查意图，特别是在其他基本风险维度的背景下，包括两种可能性信息的独特影响。效应大小和方差可用于更大规模的试验。结直肠癌（CRC）筛查率在降低该病发病率方面仍然低于最佳水平，因此需要应用激励性结构来鼓励筛查。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continue to be less-than-optimal to reduce morbidity from this disease, necessitating the application of motivational constructs to motivate screening. Increasing perceptions of CRC risk should motivate screening. Yet inconsistent findings show that higher perceived CRC at times predicts screening, sometimes not. The inconsistent findings may be due to interventions that fail to address essential dimensions of what is required to understand CRC risk (Weinstein, 1999). These dimensions include: understanding the precursors to CRC, probability of occurrence, consequences, and methods to prevent or diminish the threat-most interventions address only one or two of these components. Thus, a central study aim is to develop an intervention that addresses each dimension of risk, and assess how people's reactions/understanding on each dimension is related to intentions to screen for CRC. The likelihood of getting CRC is the most difficult component to convey (Bogardus, 1999); yet it forms a core dimension of CRC risk communicated often to the public. The likelihoods are typically expressed numerically and are often viewed as precise, contain an "aura" of "scientific accuracy and credibility. The disadvantages of using numbers to express likelihood include problems with people's numerical skills and the ability to make use and sense of small probabilities. Presenting what may appear as subjectively small probabilities may be counterproductive at motivating CRC screening. Hence, a second central study aim is to test whether inclusion of a standard display of likelihood information contextualized within the other dimensions of risk does decrease motivation to screen, and to develop and test an alternate means of displaying likelihood information designed to increase rather than decrease motivation to screen through the addition of a graphical display of risk probabilities. This study constitutes important preliminary steps to understand more fully how best to communicate CRC risk comprehensively to affect screening intentions, and in particular the unique effects of including two variants of likelihood information in the context of other essential dimensions of risk. Effects sizes and variance can be used to power a larger trial. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates continue to be less-than-optimal in reducing morbidity from this disease, necessitating the application of motivational constructs to encourage screening.