자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population‐based cancer occurrence and outcomes. Incidence data (through 2018) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2019) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2022, 1,918,030 new cancer cases and 609,360 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States, including approximately 350 deaths per day from lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death. Incidence during 2014 through 2018 continued a slow increase for female breast cancer (by 0.5% annually) and remained stable for prostate cancer, despite a 4% to 6% annual increase for advanced disease since 2011. Consequently, the proportion of prostate cancer diagnosed at a distant stage increased from 3.9% to 8.2% over the past decade. In contrast, lung cancer incidence continued to decline steeply for advanced disease while rates for localized‐stage increased suddenly by 4.5% annually, contributing to gains both in the proportion of localized‐stage diagnoses (from 17% in 2004 to 28% in 2018) and 3‐year relative survival (from 21% to 31%). Mortality patterns reflect incidence trends, with declines accelerating for lung cancer, slowing for breast cancer, and stabilizing for prostate cancer. In summary, progress has stagnated for breast and prostate cancers but strengthened for lung cancer, coinciding with changes in medical practice related to cancer screening and/or treatment. More targeted cancer control interventions and investment in improved early detection and treatment would facilitate reductions in cancer mortality.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.3322/caac.21708

Cancer statistics, 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.

/pdf/using-social-and-behavioural-science-to-support-covid-19-25vr5kyvxt.pdf

Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response.

This article presents an introduction to the Health Belief Model (HBM). The HBM states that the perception of a personal health behavior threat is influenced by at least three factors: general health values, interest and concern about health; specific beliefs about vulnerability to a particular health threat; and beliefs about the consequences of the health problem. Once an individual perceives a threat to his health and is simultaneously cued to action, if his perceived benefits outweighs his perceived costs, then the individual is most likely to undertake the recommended preventive health action. Key words: health promotion, health belief model, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, cues to action, self-efficacy. Content available only in Romanian.

Health Belief Model

Statistical Methods for Health Care Research

Background: Risk perceptions are central to many health behavior theories. However, the relationship between risk perceptions and behavior, muddied by instances of inappropriate assessment and analysis, often looks weak. Method: A meta-analysis of eligible studies assessing the bivariate association between adult vaccination and perceived likelihood, susceptibility, or severity was conducted. Results: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria (N 15,988). Risk likelihood (pooled r .26), susceptibility (pooled r .24), and severity (pooled r .16) significantly predicted vaccination behavior. The risk perception behavior relationship was larger for studies that were prospective, had higher quality risk measures, or had unskewed risk or behavior measures. Conclusions: The consistent relationships between risk perceptions and behavior, larger than suggested by prior meta-analyses, suggest that risk perceptions are rightly placed as core concepts in theories of health behavior.

/pdf/meta-analysis-of-the-relationship-between-risk-perception-1k1gbbm7ru.pdf

Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination.

Predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability: A theory-informed, systematic review

Background: Because risk perceptions can affect protective behavior and protective behavior can affect risk perceptions, the relations between these 2 constructs are complex and incorrect tests often lead to invalid conclusions. Purpose: To discuss and carry out appropriate tests of 3 easily confused hypotheses: (a) the behavior motivation hypothesis (perceptions of personal risk cause people to take protective action), (b) the risk reappraisal hypothesis (when people take actions thought to be effective, they lower their risk perceptions), and (c) the accuracy hypothesis (risk perceptions accurately reflect risk behavior). Methods: Longitudinal study with an initial interview just after the Lyme disease vaccine was made publicly available and a follow-up interview 18 months later. Random sample of adult homeowners (N = 745) in 3 northeastern U.S. counties with high Lyme disease incidence. Lyme disease vaccination behavior and risk perception were assessed. Results: All 3 hypotheses were supported. Participants with higher initial risk perceptions were much more likely than those with lower risk perceptions to get vaccinated against Lyme disease (OR = 5.81, 95% CI 2.63–12.82, p < .001). Being vaccinated led to a reduction in risk perceptions, χ 2 (1, N = 745) = 30.90, p < .001, and people vaccinated correctly believed that their risk of future infection was lower than that of people not vaccinated (OR = .44, 95% CI .21–.91, p < .05). Conclusions: The behavior motivation hypothesis was supported in this longitudinal study, but the opposite conclusion (i.e., that higher risk led to less protective behavior) would have been drawn from an incorrect test based only on cross-sectional data. Health researchers should take care in formulating and testing risk-perception-behavior hypotheses.

Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior.

Vaccination is one of the great achievements of the 20th century, yet persistent public-health problems include inadequate, delayed, and unstable vaccination uptake. Psychology offers three general propositions for understanding and intervening to increase uptake where vaccines are available and affordable. The first proposition is that thoughts and feelings can motivate getting vaccinated. Hundreds of studies have shown that risk beliefs and anticipated regret about infectious disease correlate reliably with getting vaccinated; low confidence in vaccine effectiveness and concern about safety correlate reliably with not getting vaccinated. We were surprised to find that few randomized trials have successfully changed what people think and feel about vaccines, and those few that succeeded were minimally effective in increasing uptake. The second proposition is that social processes can motivate getting vaccinated. Substantial research has shown that social norms are associated with vaccination, but few int...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100618760521

Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action:

Objective To inform international research and policy, we conducted a meta-analysis of the experimental literature on pictorial cigarette pack warnings. Data sources We systematically searched 7 computerised databases in April 2013 using several search terms. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles. Study selection We included studies that used an experimental protocol to test cigarette pack warnings and reported data on both pictorial and text-only conditions. 37 studies with data on 48 independent samples (N=33 613) met criteria. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent coders coded all study characteristics. Effect sizes were computed from data extracted from study reports and were combined using random effects meta-analytic procedures. Results Pictorial warnings were more effective than text-only warnings for 12 of 17 effectiveness outcomes (all p<0.05). Relative to text-only warnings, pictorial warnings (1) attracted and held attention better; (2) garnered stronger cognitive and emotional reactions; (3) elicited more negative pack attitudes and negative smoking attitudes and (4) more effectively increased intentions to not start smoking and to quit smoking. Participants also perceived pictorial warnings as being more effective than text-only warnings across all 8 perceived effectiveness outcomes. Conclusions The evidence from this international body of literature supports pictorial cigarette pack warnings as more effective than text-only warnings. Gaps in the literature include a lack of assessment of smoking behaviour and a dearth of theory-based research on how warnings exert their effects.

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/25/3/341.full.pdf

Noel T. Brewer

Papers

Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination.

Predictors of HPV vaccine acceptability: A theory-informed, systematic review

Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior.

Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action:

Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies