4.4 Article

Beliefs and beyond: what can we learn from qualitative studies of lay people's understandings of cancer risk?

Journal

HEALTH EXPECTATIONS
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 113-124

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00601.x

Keywords

cancer risk; qualitative research; thermatic synthesis

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [ID 457387]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Clinicians and public health professionals are centrally concerned with mediating risk. However, people often resist the risk-related information that is communicated to them by experts, or have their own models of risk that conflict with expert views. Quantitative studies have clearly demonstrated the importance of health beliefs and various cognitive and emotional processes in shaping risk perception. More recently, a growing body of qualitative research has emerged, exploring lay conceptualizations, experiences and constructions of cancer risk. To date, this literature has not been synthesized. Objective We report the findings of a synthesis of qualitative literature regarding the ways in which lay people construct and experience cancer risk. Design We identified 87 articles and used the method of 'thematic synthesis' to identify and interpret key concepts from existing studies. Results Eight analytic categories were developed: (i) perceptions of risk factors; (ii) process of risk perception; (iii) seeking control and taking responsibility (motivational factors); (iv) experiencing cancer directly; (v) constructing risk temporally; (vi) embodying risk; (vii) identifying with risk; and (viii) constructing risk in a social context. Conclusions Qualitative enquiry can provide us with a rich and nuanced picture of the ways in which people understand, experience and construct risk and how being 'at risk' is managed, and can assist us in our communication with both individual patients and populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available