There has been a paucity of research exploring how best to communicate cancer risk information, and how this information affects risk perception accuracy, behavioral change, and informed decision-making about precautionary health behaviors. The risk core will be uniquely suited to examine these issues in an experimental environment that will be of fundamental importance to the construction of efficient and effective intervention materials among program projects. The benefits of the risk core to the program projects include: 1) the flexibility to test ideas via different methodologies (e.g., laboratory studies, focus groups, etc.) needed by projects in a timely manner, 2) being responsive to the needs of projects as they emerge, 3) testing ideas before they are implemented among projects hence saving the time, efforts, and costs related to duplication of efforts among independent ~searchers, along with the added advantage of developing further ideas that show promising results in the lab as intervention strategies, 4) using methodologies that maintain experimental control, and 5) being the central arena for the integration and dissemination of information allowing for greater synergy among projects. For these reasons, the risk core is a necessary component of the CPRU with advantages that outweigh the implementation of separate small population studies and analyses of preexisting data sets.
| Bosworth, H B; Bastian, L A; Kuchibhatla, M N et al. (2001) Depressive symptoms, menopausal status, and climacteric symptoms in women at midlife. Psychosom Med 63:603-8 |
| Lipkus, I M; Biradavolu, M; Fenn, K et al. (2001) Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences. Health Commun 13:205-26 |
| Lipkus, I M; Samsa, G; Rimer, B K (2001) General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 21:37-44 |
| Lipkus, I M; Kuchibhatla, M; McBride, C M et al. (2000) Relationships among breast cancer perceived absolute risk, comparative risk, and worries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 9:973-5 |
| Halabi, S; Skinner, C S; Samsa, G P et al. (2000) Factors associated with repeat mammography screening. J Fam Pract 49:1104-12 |
| Lipkus, I M; Lyna, P R; Rimer, B K (2000) Colorectal cancer risk perceptions and screening intentions in a minority population. J Natl Med Assoc 92:492-500 |
| McBride, C M; Clipp, E; Peterson, B L et al. (2000) Psychological impact of diagnosis and risk reduction among cancer survivors. Psychooncology 9:418-27 |
| Rimer, B K (2000) Cancer control research 2001. Cancer Causes Control 11:257-70 |
| Ratliff, A; Angell, M; Dow, R W et al. (1999) What is a good decision? Eff Clin Pract 2:185-97 |
| Rimer, B K; Halabi, S; Strigo, T S et al. (1999) Confusion about mammography: prevalence and consequences. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 8:509-20 |
Showing the most recent 10 out of 12 publications
