4.7 Article

Comparison of risk perceptions and beliefs across common chronic diseases

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 197-202

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.11.008

关键词

Attitudes; Perceived risk; Worry; Perceived severity; Perceived control; Family history; Gender differences; Cardiovascular disease; Diabetes; Cancer

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and the Association for Prevention Teaching and Research [ENH-U50/CCU300860 TS-1216]
  2. American Association of Medical Colleges [UM U36/CCU319276 MM-0789, CWR U36/CCU319276 MM0630]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Few studies have compared perceptions of risk, worry, severity and control across multiple diseases. This paper examines how these perceptions vary for heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and colon, breast, and ovarian cancers. Methods. The data for this study came from the Family Healthware (TM) Impact Trial (FHITr), conducted in the United States from 2005 to 2007. Healthy adults (N = 2362) from primary care practices recorded their perceptions at baseline for each disease. Analyses were conducted controlling for study site and personal risk factors. Results. Perceived risk was significantly higher for cancers than for other diseases. Men worried most about getting heart disease; women worried most about getting breast cancer. followed by heart disease. Diabetes was perceived to be the least severe condition. Heart disease was perceived to be the most controllable compared to cancers, which were perceived to be the least controllable. Women had higher perceived risk and worry ratings compared to men for several diseases. Conclusions. These data highlight how individuals comparatively view chronic diseases. Addressing prior disease perceptions when communicating multiple disease risks may facilitate an accurate understanding of risk for diseases, and help individuals to effectively identify and engage in relevant behaviors to reduce their risk. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据