Erika A. Waters|Jennifer L. Hay|Heather Orom|Marc T. Kiviniemi|Bettina F. Drake
“Don’t Know” Responses to Risk Perception Measures
Washington University in St. Louis|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center|University at Buffalo, State University of New York|Washington University in St. Louis|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center|University at Buffalo, State University of New York|Washington University in St. Louis|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center|University at Buffalo, State University of New York|Washington University in St. Louis|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center|University at Buffalo, State University of New York|Washington University in St. Louis|Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center|University at Buffalo, State University of New York
background risk perceptions legitimate targets behavioral interventions motivate medical decisions health behaviors however survey respondents may know may indicate risk perceptions scope dont know dk responding unknown objective examine prevalence correlates responding dk items assessing perceived risk colorectal cancer methods two nationally representative populationbased crosssectional surveys 2005 national health interview survey nhis 2005 health information national trends survey hints one primary care clinicbased survey comprised individuals lowincome communities analyses included 31202 nhis 1937 hints 769 clinic individuals measures five items assessed perceived risk colorectal cancer four items differed format andor response scale comparative risk nhis hints absolute risk hints clinic likelihood chance response scales clinic clinicbased survey included explicit dk response option results dont know responding 69 nhis 75 hintscomparative 87 hintsabsolute dont know responding 491 693 chance likely response options clinic correlates dk responding characteristics generally associated disparities eg low education pattern results varied among samples question formats response scales limitations surveys developed independently employed different methodologies items consequently results directly comparable may multiple explanations differences magnitude characteristics dk responding conclusions dont know responding prevalent populations affected health disparities either assessing analyzing dk responses could disenfranchise populations negatively affect validity research efficacy interventions seeking eliminate health disparities