Cancer risk prediction models such as those published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention are a cornerstone of precision medicine and public health efforts to improve population health outcomes by tailoring preventive strategies and therapeutic treatments to the people who are most likely to benefit. However, there are several barriers to the effective translation, dissemination, and implementation of cancer risk prediction models into clinical and public health practice. In this commentary, we discuss two broad categories of barriers. Specifically, we assert that the successful use of risk-stratified cancer prevention and treatment strategies is particularly unlikely if risk prediction models are translated into risk assessment tools that (i) are difficult for the public to understand or (ii) are not structured in a way to engender the public's confidence that the results are accurate. We explain what aspects of a risk assessment tool's design and content may impede understanding and acceptance by the public. We also describe strategies for translating a cancer risk prediction model into a cancer risk assessment tool that is accessible, meaningful, and useful for the public and in clinical practice.

Scientists have been developing mathematical models to predict disease risk and clinical outcomes for decades (1–5). These models can be used to increase scientific understanding of disease incidence, prevention, detection, and treatment, and to understand long-term outcomes such as disease progression and survival (5). In recent months, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention has published two articles describing the development and use of colorectal cancer risk prediction models.

In “A New Comprehensive Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction Model Incorporating Family History, Personal Characteristics, and Environmental Factors,” a colorectal cancer incidence model is reported that includes lifestyle behaviors (e.g., diet), personal medical history (e.g., colorectal cancer screening history), and a detailed family history that accounts for the sex, age at diagnosis, and relationship to the affected individual (6). The authors concluded that the model showed promise for use in risk-stratified screening recommendations (rather than uniform guidelines based only on age and colorectal cancer diagnosis in a first-degree relative).

In “Clinical and Economic Impact of Tailoring Screening to Predicted Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Decision Analytic Modeling Study,” the authors compare uniform screening guidelines with tailored risk-based screening guidelines in quality-adjusted life years, cost, and cost-effectiveness in a U.S. population (7). They concluded that tailored risk-based screening could be preferred to uniform screening for the average-risk population; however, even “relatively modest” rates of misclassification of individuals into different risk categories or increases in the cost of risk prediction tools could tip the scales in favor of uniform screening.

The common theme in these two papers is that, under certain circumstances, cancer risk prediction models could be used in clinical practice to inform which patients get screened, at what ages, and how often. This assumption echoes the basic premise of precision medicine and public health: providing patients, caregivers, and providers information that fosters informed and shared decision-making and leads to improved health outcomes (8, 9). Recognizing this, some researchers have translated risk prediction models into clinician- or patient-facing risk assessment tools that calculate the likelihood that an individual will develop a disease in the future. These personalized risk assessment tools (also called risk calculators) have been developed for a variety of cancers, including those of the colon, breast, lung, skin (melanoma), kidney, and cervix (10, 11). Risk assessment tools have also been developed for chronic conditions such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes (12). Whereas some tools are intended for use in clinical practice, with the goal of targeting primary prevention of disease (13), other tools are disseminated via the internet—including through popular health information portals or advocacy groups—and therefore are widely accessible to the public outside of clinical settings (11, 14, 15).

Developing and disseminating risk assessment tools assumes that general users (i.e., patients or members of the general public) will calibrate their subjective perception of risk with their risk as calculated by the prediction model. Presumably, this leads to behavior change in the form of tailored approaches to screening (e.g., screening higher-risk individuals earlier and more often, and screening average- or lower-risk individuals later and less often) or engagement in disease prevention behaviors. However, the evidence supporting their utility for improving uptake of cancer prevention and detection behaviors is equivocal.

Providing personalized (rather than nonpersonalized) risk information can increase concordance of people's subjective risk perceptions with the calculated estimates for cancer and other common health conditions (16–23). When included in decision aids, they encourage informed decision-making about colorectal and breast cancer screening (24, 25). Although the effect of personalized risk information on actual uptake of cancer screening appears limited (25), such information may influence decisions more for people at high risk (24) or when the personalized information results in a tailored physician recommendation (26). However, few studies have demonstrated that providing people with personalized cancer risk information can increase or decrease their intentions to engage in cancer prevention and detection behaviors (23, 27). A systematic review of systematic reviews concluded that personalized disease risk information does not generally produce actual behavior change for smoking, physical activity, diet, or alcohol consumption (28). This statement pertains to personalized risk communication based on risk prediction models that do not include genetic testing. For information about the effects of genetic testing on decisions, see refs. 29, 30.

Many factors have likely contributed to the limited effectiveness of personalized risk assessment tools on health promotion and disease detection behaviors. One broad category of factors pertains to the design and content of the tool. Specifically, the tool must provide information in a way that people can understand and apply. However, many cancer risk assessment tools violate recommended risk communication formats and strategies (14, 31–33) by providing risk estimates only in numbers, not including a visual display or pictorial depiction of risk, using complex numerical formats such as 1 in N or number needed to treat, and having high literacy requirements (34). These characteristics can impede users' ability to understand the information provided (35–37). Furthermore, lack of transparency about what organization developed the tool (i.e., the information source), the underlying motivations of the developers, whether the tool is based on a validated risk prediction model, who are the intended users (e.g., general public or medical professionals), and the rationale underlying the selection of risk factors may limit users' ability to evaluate the credibility of the tool and thereby limit its effectiveness (14, 38). Such transparency may be especially important when describing how race is associated with risk (39, 40). Recent work has shown that many risk prediction algorithms “correct” risk estimates for Black patients in a way that makes Black patients ineligible for health care that they would have been eligible to receive, had they been White. Risk prediction modelers should be cautious when including race in their models to avoid perpetuating “suspect racial science” and to recognize that the relationship between race and health is, in most cases, less related to genetics and more related to the detrimental effects of racism and other social inequities (e.g., residential segregation, disparate exposure to environmental toxins).

Researchers must also recognize that it is unrealistic to expect people to change their behavior based only on being given a probabilistic estimate of developing a disease. Not only are the concepts of risk and risk comprehension far richer than simply recalling a single probability estimate (41–45), but there is also a broad range of psychosocial, interpersonal, and socio-contextual factors that influence behavior and behavior change (46–48). Cancer risk assessment tools that attempt to promote behavior change without recognizing the richness and complexity of people's lived experiences are unlikely to be effective and may inadvertently reduce motivation to change (49, 50). For example, people who work physically demanding jobs or jobs with limited or no paid sick leave may not be able to take the actions needed to engage in colorectal cancer screening without risking their employment or incomes (51).

A second broad category of factors that may impede the ability of personalized risk assessment tools to affect health decisions and behaviors relates to people's tendency to either reject risk information, or to reject its implications for them personally. Although participants often accurately recall the information a risk calculator provides, and in many cases report perceptions of risk that are more congruent with the calculated estimates, perceptions rarely become completely congruent (19, 23, 52, 53, but see ref. 21). People might disbelieve risk information for a multitude of reasons. Some people may reject the information because it conflicts with their prior beliefs or expectations (52, 54–56). For instance, the Study of Tamoxifen (STAR) Trial reported that women's personal experiences with breast cancer, such as having a family history or having had a biopsy, led them to expect that they were at high risk (54). When they received a probabilistic estimate that did not appear as high as they anticipated, they rejected the risk information.

Other studies reported that users of personalized risk assessment tools rejected the results because the participants doubted the validity or reliability of the risk prediction model (52, 55, 56). For example, in one study some women disbelieved their breast cancer risk estimates because the risk prediction model excluded aspects of their family history, medical history, or lifestyle behaviors that they felt affected risk (52). Participants in another study reported feeling mistrust for the creators or corporate sponsors of the tool, suggesting concerns about conflicts of interest (55). Still other participants had concerns about the ability to determine an individual's cancer risk using population-based data (52, 57). This issue is well known in epidemiology (58) and was highlighted as “the most difficult conceptual problem” discussed in focus groups of people who were asked to grapple with personalized colon cancer risk information (57). It is also possible that some participants may question the generalizability or personal relevance of the model, wondering whether it was created based on data from people from their racial/ethnic group (59).

Another element of risk assessment tools that may exacerbate uncertainty about the validity of the results among the general public is the complexity of the information required. People who use tools that require results of medical tests or diagnoses (e.g., prostate-specific antigen level, type of cancer; ref. 60), detailed family history (61, 62) that may not be available to all individuals (e.g., adoptees, people whose families never discussed cancer), information from many years in the past (e.g., asking a 50-year-old person to remember their weight at age 18), and highly detailed information (e.g., number of servings of meat eaten per week; ref. 63) may be uncertain about the information they enter and therefore be justifiably skeptical of the accuracy of the resulting risk estimate. Reducing information complexity by asking for categorical information (e.g., eat more than or less than 5 servings of meat per week) or allowing for missing data may increase the usability of the tools without significantly reducing their calibration or discrimination (64). Having health care providers complete the tool with patients may allow patients an opportunity to ask questions about the meaning of certain elements of the tool or diagnoses, and thereby increase the accuracy of the results. A virtual counselor may be useful for patients who are concerned about privacy (65). Provider-mediated tool use, or making the tools available in clinical settings, may also overcome barriers to access due to limitations in digital literacy and the digital divide (66).

If a cancer risk assessment tool is placed online and is not access restricted, it will likely be found and used by members of the public, possibly without a clinician's involvement. Thus, risk prediction modelers who wish to translate their model into practical applications should consider the following before they begin the process of developing the website, to ensure that their information is communicated in a way that people can comprehend, will accept rather than reject, and will use appropriately when making health decisions. Many of these suggestions will also be beneficial in increasing the tool's comprehensibility and utility for practicing clinicians, who may desire a patient-friendly way to discuss cancer risk during clinical encounters.

  1. Make sure the tool is written at a 6th grade reading level, define or describe medical terminology in straightforward terms, and include pictures, drawings, or illustrations (67, 68). Health literacy (i.e., the ability to understand and use health information to make medical decisions) and its conceptual cousins numeracy and graph literacy are limited in the United States, particularly among individuals who are older than 65 years of age; are Black, Indigenous, or people of color; have limited formal education or low income; or are nonnative speakers of English, refugees, or immigrants (69, 70). Clinicians are not immune to having limited numeracy (71).

  2. Risk assessment tools should be designed in a way that allows users to easily and correctly enter the information needed to calculate risk estimates. Risk assessment tools often require information that is difficult, sensitive, and potentially stigmatizing for the general public to answer (e.g., requesting detailed family history; biological, medical, or behavioral information that the user does not have access to); this might limit the extent to which users view the tool as personally relevant and useful.

  3. Refer to established risk communication guidelines (31, 32) and adopt their recommended risk communication formats and strategies. Hundreds of studies have investigated how to communicate health risk information in ways that the public can understand, find motivating, and use effectively when making health and medical decisions (for reviews, see refs. 31–33, 72, 73). Although the field has identified some best practices (e.g., use percentage or frequency format, but not 1 in N; bar graphs and iconarrays/pictographs facilitate understanding, but pie charts do not), other areas are understudied (e.g., how to best convey multiple disease risk estimates simultaneously).

  4. Provide the information people need to make a decision, rather than the information scientists would like to see (74). The level of detail required for scientific evaluation is often more than the level of detail that is needed for people to make good decisions. For example, a more precise risk estimate that includes decimals may be recalled with less accuracy and perceived as less credible than an integer-based risk estimate (75). Indeed, there are circumstances in which only qualitative risk categories (e.g., “high risk”) and not specific numerical estimates are needed to convey the intended meaning of the communication (74).

  5. Provide information that consumers need to evaluate the validity, generalizability, personal relevance, and credibility of the risk prediction model, including information to help patients understand what role each risk factor plays in their risk estimate (38, 76). Mere recall of a specific risk estimate should not be interpreted as the individual's understanding of that estimate, nor should it be assumed that they believe that the risk estimate is an accurate reflection of their personal risk (42). This may be particularly relevant for populations who are underrepresented in medical research and, therefore, are also underrepresented in cohorts used to develop risk prediction models. Unfortunately, little is known about how to make risk assessment tools believable to individuals who reject their results; more research is needed.

  6. Provide evidence-based “action steps” for people to take to reduce their risk. If the behavior is complex (e.g., engaging in lifestyle-based cancer prevention behaviors or accessing cancer screening), provide links to respected national and local resources to facilitate change. Providing an estimate of how much changing behavior might reduce risk also may be helpful (42, 46). Providing risk information without also providing information about how a person can reduce their risk can prompt people to engage in behaviors that help them avoid thinking about the risk (e.g., by thinking of reasons to reject the information) rather than behaviors that help them avoid the actual health problem (e.g., getting screened; refs. 49, 50).

  7. Involve behavioral scientists early in the development process. Helping people change their cancer prevention and detection behaviors is an exceedingly complex and multifaceted endeavor (46–48). Attempting to change people's behavior without seeking relevant expertise may inadvertently impede, rather than support, behavior change.

  8. Design with dissemination in mind. Implementing novel tools, technologies, and practices into clinical and public settings is also a highly complex endeavor that, if done poorly, could negate its benefits. To maximize the likelihood that the target audience not only uses the tool, but also finds it useful, it is important to design the risk assessment tool with dissemination and implementation in mind (77, 78). To accomplish this, developers should: (i) convene an advisory board comprised of stakeholders from several perspectives at multiple levels of influence (e.g., patients, physicians, clinic staff, behavioral scientists, and information technology specialists) to elicit their insight about the content and format of the tool and the extent to which its use may affect clinical operations, and (ii) subject the tool to iterative rounds of usability and acceptability testing to ensure that it meets the needs of its intended users (79, 80), whether they are health care providers, patients, and/or members of the general public. Ideally, by the end of this process, users (whether provider or patient) will not need any specialized training to use the tool or understand the results.

Risk prediction models like those developed by Zheng and colleagues and Ladabaum and colleagues hold great promise for personalized medicine and for improving patient health and well-being. Indeed, risk prediction models are already being translated into risk assessment tools and incorporated into patient-facing tools to assist patients and providers in making informed decisions about whether and when to initiate and stop cancer screening, to take medication to prevent breast cancer, to foster discussions about family history, and to engage in cancer prevention behaviors (10, 11, 25, 81, 82). However, there are pitfalls to using these tools, as their utility depends on the extent to which they support patient understanding, acceptance, and, when appropriate, behavior activation or change. We encourage the continued development of risk prediction models and support continued consideration of how to integrate risk assessment tools into routine clinical and public health practice in the service of improving health outcomes.

E.A. Waters reports grants from National Institutes of Health (R01CA190391) during the conduct of the study. A.J. Housten reports grants from NIH, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD; R00MD011485) during the conduct of the study. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

E.A. Waters and A.J. Housten were supported by grants from the NIH (R01CA190391 to E.A. Waters; R00MD011485 to A.J. Housten).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Wilson
PW
,
D'Agostino
RB
,
Levy
D
,
Belanger
AM
,
Silbershatz
H
,
Kannel
WB
. 
Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories
.
Circulation
1998
;
97
:
1837
47
.
2.
Gail
MH
,
Brinton
LA
,
Byar
DP
,
Corle
DK
,
Green
SB
,
Schairer
C
, et al
Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually
.
JNCI
1989
;
81
:
1879
86
.
3.
Damen
JA
,
Hooft
L
,
Schuit
E
,
Debray
TP
,
Collins
GS
,
Tzoulaki
I
, et al
Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review
.
BMJ
2016
;
353
:
i2416
.
4.
Cintolo-Gonzalez
JA
,
Braun
D
,
Blackford
AL
,
Mazzola
E
,
Acar
A
,
Plichta
JK
, et al
Breast cancer risk models: a comprehensive overview of existing models, validation, and clinical applications
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2017
;
164
:
263
84
.
5.
Steyerberg
EW
.
Clinical prediction models
.
New York
:
Springer
; 
2009
.
6.
Zheng
Y
,
Hua
X
,
Win
AK
,
MacInnis
RJ
,
Gallinger
S
,
Marchand
LL
, et al
A new comprehensive colorectal cancer risk prediction model incorporating family history, personal characteristics, and environmental factors.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2020
;
29
:
549
57
.
7.
Ladabaum
U
,
Mannalithara
A
,
Mitani
A
,
Desai
M
. 
Clinical and economic impact of tailoring screening to predicted colorectal cancer risk: a decision analytic modeling study
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2020
;
29
:
318
28
.
8.
Collins
FS
,
Varmus
H
. 
A new initiative on precision medicine
.
N Engl J Med
2015
;
372
:
793
5
.
9.
Khoury
MJ
,
Iademarco
MF
,
Riley
WT
. 
Precision public health for the era of precision medicine
.
Am J Prev Med
2016
;
50
:
398
401
.
10.
Cancer Care Ontario
. 
My
cancer IQ: Cancer Care Ontario
; 
2014
[updated February 6, 2020]. Available from:
https://www.mycanceriq.ca/Cancers/Risk.
11.
Your Disease Risk 2007
[updated 2018]; [about 3 screens]. [cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from:
https://siteman.wustl.edu/prevention/ydr/.
12.
FHS Primary Risk Functions
;
[about 5 screens]. [cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from:
https://framinghamheartstudy.org/fhs-risk-functions/.
13.
The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool
;
[about 2 screens]. [cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from:
http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/.
14.
Waters
EA
,
Sullivan
HW
,
Nelson
W
,
Hesse
BW
. 
What is my cancer risk? Identifying how Internet-based cancer risk calculators convey individualized risk estimates to the public
.
J Med Internet Res
2009
;
11
:
e33
.
15.
COPD Population Screener; [about 2 screens]
.
[cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/copd/assessment-copd-risk/default.htm.
16.
Powers
BJ
,
Danus
S
,
Grubber
JM
,
Olsen
MK
,
Oddone
EZ
,
Bosworth
HB
. 
The effectiveness of personalized coronary heart disease and stroke risk communication
.
Am Heart J
2011
;
161
:
673
80
.
17.
Sheridan
SL
,
Viera
AJ
,
Krantz
MJ
,
Ice
CL
,
Steinman
LE
,
Peters
KE
, et al
The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults: a systematic review
.
Arch Intern Med
2010
;
170
:
230
9
.
18.
Welschen
LM
,
Bot
SD
,
Kostense
PJ
,
Dekker
JM
,
Timmermans
DR
,
van der Weijden
T
, et al
Effects of cardiovascular disease risk communication for patients with type 2 diabetes on risk perception in a randomized controlled trial: the @RISK study
.
Diabetes Care
2012
;
35
:
2485
92
.
19.
Weinstein
ND
,
Atwood
K
,
Puleo
E
,
Fletcher
R
,
Colditz
G
,
Emmons
KM
. 
Colon cancer: risk perceptions and risk communication
.
J Health Commun
2004
;
9
:
53
65
.
20.
Helmes
AW
,
Culver
JO
,
Bowen
DJ
. 
Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling
.
Patient Educ Couns
2006
;
64
:
96
103
.
21.
Harle
CA
,
Downs
JS
,
Padman
R
. 
Effectiveness of personalized and interactive health risk calculators: a randomized trial
.
Med Decis Making
2012
;
32
:
594
605
.
22.
Drieling
RL
,
Ma
J
,
Thiyagarajan
S
,
Stafford
RS
. 
An Internet-based osteoporotic fracture risk program, effect on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
.
J Women's Health
2011
;
20
:
1895
907
.
23.
Fowler
SL
,
Klein
WMP
,
Ball
L
,
McGuire
J
,
Colditz
GA
,
Waters
EA
. 
Using an internet-based breast cancer risk assessment tool to improve social-cognitive precursors of physical activity
.
Med Decis Making
2017
;
37
:
657
69
.
24.
Edwards
AG
,
Naik
G
,
Ahmed
H
,
Elwyn
GJ
,
Pickles
T
,
Hood
K
, et al
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2013
;
2
:
CD001865
.
25.
Schapira
MM
,
Hubbard
RA
,
Seitz
HH
,
Conant
EF
,
Schnall
M
,
Cappella
JN
, et al
The impact of a risk-based breast cancer screening decision aid on initiation of mammography among younger women: report of a randomized trial
.
MDM Policy Pract
2019
;
4
:
2381468318812889
.
26.
Skinner
CS
,
Strecher
VJ
,
Hospers
H
. 
Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference
?
Am J Public Health
1994
;
84
:
43
9
.
27.
Lipkus
IM
,
Johnson
CM
,
Amarasekara
S
,
Pan
W
,
Updegraff
JA
. 
Reactions to online colorectal cancer risk estimates among a nationally representative sample of adults who have never been screened
.
J Behav Med
2018
;
41
:
289
98
.
28.
French
DP
,
Cameron
E
,
Benton
JS
,
Deaton
C
,
Harvie
M
. 
Can communicating personalised disease risk promote healthy behaviour change
? 
A systematic review of systematic reviews
.
Ann Behav Med
2017
;
51
:
718
29
.
29.
Frieser
MJ
,
Wilson
S
,
Vrieze
S
. 
Behavioral impact of return of genetic test results for complex disease: systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Health Psychol
2018
;
37
:
1134
.
30.
Hollands
GJ
,
French
DP
,
Griffin
SJ
,
Prevost
AT
,
Sutton
S
,
King
S
, et al
The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis
.
BMJ
2016
;
352
:
i1102
.
31.
Lipkus
IM
. 
Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations
.
Med Decis Making
2007
;
27
:
696
713
.
32.
Trevena
LJ
,
Zikmund-Fisher
BJ
,
Edwards
A
,
Gaissmaier
W
,
Galesic
M
,
Han
PK
, et al
Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers
.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
2013
;
13 Suppl
2
:
S7
.
33.
Garcia-Retamero
R
. 
Literacy CETDVATPR: a systematic review of health research and evidence-based design heuristics
.
Hum Factors
2017
;
59
:
582
627
.
34.
Cortez
S
,
Milbrandt
M
,
Kaphingst
K
,
James
A
,
Colditz
G
. 
The readability of online breast cancer risk assessment tools
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2015
;
154
:
191
9
.
35.
Cuite
C
,
Weinstein
ND
,
Emmons
K
,
Colditz
G
. 
A test of numeric formats for risk communication
.
Med Decis Making
2008
;
28
:
377
84
.
36.
Zikmund-Fisher
BJ
. 
Time to retire the 1-in-X risk format
.
Med Decis Making
2011
;
31
:
703
4
.
37.
Sheridan
SL
,
Pignone
MP
,
Lewis
CL
. 
A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats
.
J Gen Intern Med
2003
;
18
:
884
92
.
38.
Gurmankin Levy
A
,
Sonnad
SS
,
Kurichi
JE
,
Sherman
M
,
Armstrong
K
. 
Making sense of cancer risk calculators on the web
.
J Gen Intern Med
2008
;
23
:
229
35
.
39.
Vyas
DA
,
Eisenstein
LG
,
Jones
DS
. 
Hidden in plain sight—reconsidering the use of race correction in clinical algorithms
.
N Engl J Med
2020
.
40.
Figueroa
JF
,
Frakt
AB
,
Jha
AK
. 
Addressing social determinants of health: time for a polysocial risk score
.
JAMA
2020
;
323
:
1553
4
.
41.
Slovic
P
. 
Perception of risk
.
Science
1987
;
236
:
280
5
.
42.
Weinstein
ND
. 
What does it mean to understand a risk
? 
Evaluating risk comprehension
.
JNCI Monographs
1999
;
25
:
15
20
.
43.
Fischhoff
B
. 
Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of progress
.
Risk Anal
1995
;
15
:
137
45
.
44.
Lee
SJC
. 
Uncertain futures: individual risk and social context in decision-making in cancer screening
.
Health Risk Soc
2010
;
12
:
101
17
.
45.
Finkel
AM
. 
Perceiving others' perceptions of risk: still a task for Sisyphus
.
Ann N Y Acad Sci
2008
;
1128
:
121
37
.
46.
Michie
S
,
Ashford
S
,
Sniehotta
FF
,
Dombrowski
SU
,
Bishop
A
,
French
DP
. 
A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: the CALO-RE taxonomy
.
Psychol Health
2011
;
26
:
1479
98
.
47.
Conner
M
,
Norman
P
,
editors.
Predicting health behaviour
.
Buckingham/Philadelphia
:
Open University Press
; 
1995
.
48.
Sallis
JF
,
Owen
N
,
Fisher
E
. 
Ecological models of health behavior
. In:
Glanz
K
,
Rimer
BK
,
Viswanath
KV
,
editors.
Health behavior: theory, research, and practice
.
Hoboken (NJ): Jossey-Bass/Wiley; 2015.
p.
43
64
.
49.
Witte
K
. 
Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model
.
Commun Monogr
1992
;
59
:
329
49
.
50.
Rogers
RW
,
Prentice-Dunn
S
. 
Protection motivation theory
.
In:
Gochman
DS
,
editor.
Handbook of health behavior research I: personal and social determinants
.
New York
:
Plenum Press
; 
1997
. p.
113
32
.
51.
Hunleth
JM
,
Steinmetz
EK
,
McQueen
A
,
James
AS
. 
Beyond adherence: health care disparities and the struggle to get screened for colon cancer
.
Qual Health Res
2016
;
26
:
17
31
.
52.
Scherer
LD
,
Ubel
PA
,
McClure
J
,
Greene
SM
,
Alford
SH
,
Holtzman
L
, et al
Belief in numbers: when and why women disbelieve tailored breast cancer risk statistics
.
Patient Educ Couns
2013
;
92
:
253
9
.
53.
Linnenbringer
E
,
Roberts
JS
,
Hiraki
S
,
Cupples
LA
,
Green
RC
. “ 
I know what you told me, but this is what I think”: perceived risk of Alzheimer disease among individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based risk estimate
.
Genet Med
2010
;
12
:
219
27
.
54.
Holmberg
C
,
Waters
EA
,
Whitehouse
K
,
Daly
M
,
McCaskill-Stevens
W
. 
My lived experiences are more important than your probabilities: the role of individualized risk estimates for decision making about participation in the study of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR)
.
Med Decis Making
2015
;
35
:
1010
22
.
55.
Bonner
C
,
Jansen
J
,
Newell
BR
,
Irwig
L
,
Glasziou
P
,
Doust
J
, et al
I don't believe it, but I'd better do something about it: patient experiences of online heart age risk calculators
.
J Med Internet Res
2014
;
16
:
e120
e
.
56.
Damman
OC
,
Bogaerts
NMM
,
van den Haak
MJ
,
Timmermans
DRM
. 
How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information
.
Health Expect
2017
;
20
:
973
83
.
57.
Han
PK
. 
Conceptual problems in laypersons' understanding of individualized cancer risk: a qualitative study
.
Health Expect
2009
;
12
:
4
17
.
58.
Rockhill
B
. 
The privatization of risk
.
Am J Public Health
2001
;
91
:
365
8
.
59.
Waters
EA
,
Ball
L
,
Gehlert
S
. 
“I don't believe it.” Acceptance and skepticism of genetic health information among African-American and White smokers
.
Soc Sci Med
2017
;
184
:
153
60
60.
Kessels
RP
. 
Patients' memory for medical information
.
J R Soc Med
2003
;
96
:
219
22
.
61.
Fiederling
J
,
Shams
AZ
,
Haug
U
. 
Validity of self-reported family history of cancer: a systematic literature review on selected cancers
.
Int J Cancer
2016
;
139
:
1449
60
.
62.
Wu
RR
,
Orlando
LA
. 
Implementation of health risk assessments with family health history: barriers and benefits
.
Postgrad Med J
2015
;
91
:
508
13
.
63.
Ovaskainen
ML
,
Paturi
M
,
Reinivuo
H
,
Hannila
ML
,
Sinkko
H
,
Lehtisalo
J
, et al
Accuracy in the estimation of food servings against the portions in food photographs
.
Eur J Clin Nutr
2008
;
62
:
674
81
.
64.
Liu
Y
,
Colditz
GA
,
Rosner
BA
,
Dart
H
,
Wei
E
,
Waters
EA
. 
Comparison of performance between a short categorized lifestyle exposure-based colon cancer risk prediction tool and a model using continuous measures
.
Cancer Prev Res
2018
;
11
:
841
8
.
65.
Wang
C
,
Bickmore
T
,
Bowen
DJ
,
Norkunas
T
,
Campion
M
,
Cabral
H
, et al
Acceptability and feasibility of a virtual counselor (VICKY) to collect family health histories
.
Genet Med
2015
;
17
:
822
30
.
66.
McCloud
RF
,
Okechukwu
CA
,
Sorensen
G
,
Viswanath
K
. 
Beyond access: barriers to internet health information seeking among the urban poor
.
J Am Med Inform Assoc
2016
;
23
:
1053
9
.
67.
Park
J
,
Zuniga
J
. 
Effectiveness of using picture-based health education for people with low health literacy: an integrative review
.
Cogent Med
2016
;
3
:
1264679
.
68.
Doak
CC
,
Doak
LG
,
Root
JH
.
Teaching patients with low literacy skills.
Philadelphia
:
Lippincott
; 
1985
.
69.
Kutner
M
,
Greenberg
E
,
Jin
Y
,
Paulsen
C
. 
The health literacy of America's adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
.
Washington (DC)
:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Health Statistics
; 
2006
.
Report No.: NCES 2006-483
.
70.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
.
National action plan to improve health literacy
.
Washington (DC)
:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
; 
2010
[cited 2020 Jul 20]. Available from:
https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Health_Literacy_Action_Plan.pdf.
71.
Petrova
D
,
Mas
G
,
Navarrete
G
,
Rodriguez
TT
,
Ortiz
PJ
,
Garcia-Retamero
R
. 
Cancer screening risk literacy of physicians in training: an experimental study
.
PLoS One
2019
;
14
:
e0218821
.
72.
Fagerlin
A
,
Ubel
PA
,
Smith
DM
,
Zikmund-Fisher
BJ
. 
Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication
.
Am J Health Behav
2007
;
31
:
S47
S56
.
73.
Waters
EA
,
McQueen
A
,
Cameron
LD
. 
Perceived risk and health risk communication
.
In:
Chou
S
,
Hamilton
HE
,
editors.
Handbook on language and health communication
.
New York
:
Routledge
; 
2014
. p.
47
60
.
74.
Zikmund-Fisher
BJ
. 
The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication
.
Med Care Res Rev
2013
;
70
:
37S
49S
.
75.
Witteman
HO
,
Zikmund-Fisher
BJ
,
Waters
EA
,
Gavaruzzi
T
,
Fagerlin
A
. 
Risk estimates from an online risk calculator are more believable and recalled better when expressed as integers
.
J Med Internet Res
2011
;
13
:
e54
.
76.
Cameron
LD
,
Marteau
TM
,
Brown
PM
,
Klein
WM
,
Sherman
KA
. 
Communication strategies for enhancing understanding of the behavioral implications of genetic and biomarker tests for disease risk: the role of coherence
.
J Behav Med
2012
;
35
:
286
98
.
77.
Brownson
RC
,
Colditz
GA
,
Proctor
EK
.
Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice
.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
; 
2017
.
78.
Curran
GM
,
Bauer
M
,
Mittman
B
,
Pyne
JM
,
Stetler
C
. 
Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact
.
Med Care
2012
;
50
:
217
.
79.
Tariman
JD
,
Berry
DL
,
Halpenny
B
,
Wolpin
S
,
Schepp
K
. 
Validation and testing of the acceptability e-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care
.
Appl Nurs Res
2011
;
24
:
53
8
.
80.
Bastien
JC
. 
Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method
.
Int J Med Inform
2010
;
79
:
e18
e23
.
81.
Fagerlin
A
,
Zikmund-Fisher
BJ
,
Nair
V
,
Derry
HA
,
McClure
JB
,
Greene
S
, et al
Women's decisions regarding tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: responses to a tailored decision aid
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2010
;
119
:
613
20
.
82.
Baer
HJ
,
Schneider
LI
,
Colditz
GA
,
Dart
H
,
Andry
A
,
Williams
DH
, et al
Use of a web-based risk appraisal tool for assessing family history and lifestyle factors in primary care
.
J Gen Intern Med
2013
;
28
:
817
24
.