4.0 Article

Risk Perceptions and Family History of Lung Cancer: Differences by Smoking Status

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 26-34

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000294151

Keywords

Family history; Lung cancer; Risk perceptions; Smoking

Funding

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Individuals with a family history of lung cancer have a two- to threefold increased risk for developing this disease. Family history information may be useful in lung cancer prevention and control approaches, but research is needed regarding how individuals interpret this information. This study examined associations between lung cancer family history and individuals' risk perceptions, based on smoking status. Methods: Data were analyzed from 5,105 U. S. adult respondents to the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey, which was conducted with a nationally representative sample. Results: In multivariate models, family history of lung cancer was positively associated with absolute and relative risk perceptions among all respondents (beta = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.33-0.87 and beta = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.04-0.31, respectively) and among never smokers (beta = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.14-0.67 and beta = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.01-0.27, respectively). However, these associations were not significant for current and former smokers. Conclusion: While perceived risk was associated with family history of lung cancer among never smokers, this was not true for other smoking status subgroups. Therefore, former and current smokers might not respond as intended to cancer prevention or cessation messages tailored based on family history. The results suggest directions for future research into how to best integrate family history information into prevention and control efforts. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available