Abstract IA20: Maximizing the impact of risk prediction models: Leveraging lessons learned from risk communication research

W. Klein
{"title":"Abstract IA20: Maximizing the impact of risk prediction models: Leveraging lessons learned from risk communication research","authors":"W. Klein","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The most promising new medications are doomed to be ineffective if not adequately prescribed and taken as directed by patients, highlighting the grave importance of understanding the vicissitudes of human behavior. The same might be said of risk prediction tools. Irrespective of their quality and validity, the successful use and impact of such tools hinges firmly on a thorough understanding of human motivation, emotion, and cognition – the building blocks of human behavior and decision-making. In general, people desire to minimize loss, uncertainty, and ambiguity, and they hold defensive self-serving beliefs about their risk and risk factors, particularly when they compare themselves to other people. People also construe risk in terms of dimensions such as dread, absolute frequency, controllability, and intuition rather than objective likelihood, and fail to consider base rates when assessing risk (rendering their risk judgments non-Bayesian). They also endeavor to appear to themselves and others as rational actors, often leading to the paradoxical choice of non-dominant options, and are influenced – often beyond awareness – by incidental emotions and secondary motives such as managing existential anxiety when evaluating personal risk and making consequential decisions. People also vary greatly in how they use and comprehend numerical information and in the comfort with which they do so. Risk communication strategies have been developed to reduce the undesired consequences of these phenomena on risk perception and decision making, and in some cases can be implemented quite easily into the outward design of a risk prediction tool as well as the manner in which it is used in clinical practice. Citation Format: William MP Klein. Maximizing the impact of risk prediction models: Leveraging lessons learned from risk communication research. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr IA20.","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The most promising new medications are doomed to be ineffective if not adequately prescribed and taken as directed by patients, highlighting the grave importance of understanding the vicissitudes of human behavior. The same might be said of risk prediction tools. Irrespective of their quality and validity, the successful use and impact of such tools hinges firmly on a thorough understanding of human motivation, emotion, and cognition – the building blocks of human behavior and decision-making. In general, people desire to minimize loss, uncertainty, and ambiguity, and they hold defensive self-serving beliefs about their risk and risk factors, particularly when they compare themselves to other people. People also construe risk in terms of dimensions such as dread, absolute frequency, controllability, and intuition rather than objective likelihood, and fail to consider base rates when assessing risk (rendering their risk judgments non-Bayesian). They also endeavor to appear to themselves and others as rational actors, often leading to the paradoxical choice of non-dominant options, and are influenced – often beyond awareness – by incidental emotions and secondary motives such as managing existential anxiety when evaluating personal risk and making consequential decisions. People also vary greatly in how they use and comprehend numerical information and in the comfort with which they do so. Risk communication strategies have been developed to reduce the undesired consequences of these phenomena on risk perception and decision making, and in some cases can be implemented quite easily into the outward design of a risk prediction tool as well as the manner in which it is used in clinical practice. Citation Format: William MP Klein. Maximizing the impact of risk prediction models: Leveraging lessons learned from risk communication research. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr IA20.
IA20:最大化风险预测模型的影响:利用风险沟通研究的经验教训
最有希望的新药物如果没有充分的处方和患者的指导,注定是无效的,这突出了理解人类行为变迁的严重重要性。风险预测工具也是如此。不管它们的质量和有效性如何,这些工具的成功使用和影响都牢牢地依赖于对人类动机、情感和认知的透彻理解——人类行为和决策的基石。一般来说,人们希望将损失、不确定性和模糊性最小化,并且他们对自己的风险和风险因素持有防御性的自我服务信念,特别是当他们将自己与其他人进行比较时。人们还根据恐惧、绝对频率、可控性和直觉等维度来解释风险,而不是客观可能性,并且在评估风险时没有考虑基本比率(使他们的风险判断是非贝叶斯的)。他们还努力在自己和他人面前表现为理性的行为者,经常导致非主导选项的矛盾选择,并受到偶然情绪和次要动机的影响(通常超出意识范围),例如在评估个人风险和做出相应决定时管理存在主义焦虑。人们在使用和理解数字信息的方式以及他们这样做的舒适度方面也有很大差异。风险沟通策略已经被开发出来,以减少这些现象对风险感知和决策的不良后果,在某些情况下,可以很容易地实施到风险预测工具的外部设计以及在临床实践中使用的方式中。引用格式:William MP Klein。最大化风险预测模型的影响:利用从风险沟通研究中吸取的经验教训。[摘要]。摘自:AACR特别会议论文集:改进癌症风险预测以预防和早期发现;2016年11月16日至19日;费城(PA): AACR;癌症流行病学杂志,2017;26(5增刊):摘要1 - 20。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信