Strategies to help inform colorectal cancer risk magnitudes

描述(由申请人提供)： 结直肠癌(CRC)筛查率仍然不够理想，无法减少这种疾病的发病率，这就需要应用激励结构来激励筛查。人们对结直肠癌风险的认识不断增加，应该会促使进行筛查。然而，不一致的研究结果表明，较高的认知CRC有时可以预测筛查，有时则不能。这些不一致的发现可能是由于干预措施未能解决了解结直肠癌风险所需的基本维度(Weinstein，1999)。这些方面包括：了解CRC的前兆、发生的概率、后果以及预防或减少威胁的方法--大多数干预措施只涉及其中的一到两个组成部分。因此，一个中心的研究目标是开发一种针对每个风险维度的干预措施，并评估人们在每个维度上的反应/理解与筛查CRC的意图之间的关系。获得CRC的可能性是最难传达的部分(Bogardus，1999)；然而，它构成了经常向公众传达的CRC风险的一个核心方面。可能性通常是用数字表示的，通常被认为是精确的，包含一种“科学准确性和可信度”的“光环”。使用数字来表示可能性的缺点包括人们的数字技能以及利用和理解小概率的能力问题。在鼓励结直肠癌筛查方面，提出主观上看可能很小的可能性可能会适得其反。因此，第二个中心研究目标是测试包括在其他风险维度中的可能性信息的标准显示是否确实降低了屏幕动机，并开发和测试一种替代的显示可能性信息的方法，旨在通过增加风险概率的图形显示来增加而不是减少屏幕动机。这项研究是更充分地了解如何更全面地传达儿童权利公约风险以影响筛查意向的重要初步步骤，特别是在风险的其他基本维度的背景下纳入两种可能性信息的独特影响。效应的大小和差异可以用来支持更大规模的试验。结直肠癌(CRC)筛查率在减少这种疾病的发病率方面仍然不太理想，因此有必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.