3 resultados para risk’s perception
em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center
Resumo:
INFLUENCE OF ANCHORING ON MISCARRIAGE RISK PERCEPTION ASSOCIATED WITH AMNIOCENTESIS Publication No. ___________ Regina Nuccio, BS Supervisory Professor: Claire N. Singletary, MS, CGC Amniocentesis is the most common invasive procedure performed during pregnancy (Eddleman, et al., 2006). One important factor that women consider when making a decision about amniocentesis is the risk of miscarriage associated with the procedure. People use heuristics such as anchoring, the action of using a prior belief regarding the magnitude of risk as a frame of reference for new information to be synthesized, to better understand risks that they encounter in their lives. This study aimed to determine a woman’s perception of miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis before and after a genetic counseling session and to determine what factors are most likely to anchor a woman’s perception of miscarriage risk associated with amniocentesis. Most women perceived the risk as low or average pre-counseling and were likely to indicate the numeric risk of amniocentesis as <1% risk. A higher percentage of patients correctly identified the numeric risk as <1% post-counseling when compared to pre-counseling. However, the majority of patients’ feeling about the risk perception did not change after the genetic counseling session (60%), regardless of how they perceived the risk before discussing amniocentesis with a genetic counselor. Those whose risk perception did change after discussing amniocentesis with a genetic counselor showed a decreased risk perception (p<0.0001). Of the multitude of factors studied, only two showed significance: having a friend or relative with a personal or family history of a genetic disorder was associated with a lower risk perception (p=0.001) and having a child already was associated with a lower risk perception (p=0.038). The lack of significant factors may reflect the uniqueness of each patient’s heuristic framework and reinforces the importance of genetic counseling to elucidate individual concerns.
Resumo:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for risk assessment and risk management in the post-market surveillance of the U.S. medical device industry. One of the FDA regulatory mechanisms, the Medical Device Reporting System (MDR) is an adverse event reporting system intended to provide the FDA with advance warning of device problems. It includes voluntary reporting for individuals, and mandatory reporting for device manufacturers. ^ In a study of alleged breast implant safety problems, this research examines the organizational processes by which the FDA gathers data on adverse events and uses adverse event reporting systems to assess and manage risk. The research reviews the literature on problem recognition, risk perception, and organizational learning to understand the influence highly publicized events may have on adverse event reporting. Understanding the influence of an environmental factor, such as publicity, on adverse event reporting can provide insight into the question of whether the FDA's adverse event reporting system operates as an early warning system for medical device problems. ^ The research focuses on two main questions. The first question addresses the relationship between publicity and the voluntary and mandatory reporting of adverse events. The second question examines whether government agencies make use of these adverse event reports. ^ Using quantitative and qualitative methods, a longitudinal study was conducted of the number and content of adverse event reports regarding breast implants filed with the FDA's medical device reporting system during 1985–1991. To assess variation in publicity over time, the print media were analyzed to identify articles related to breast implant failures. ^ The exploratory findings suggest that an increase in media activity is related to an increase in voluntary reporting, especially following periods of intense media coverage of the FDA. However, a similar relationship was not found between media activity and manufacturers' mandatory adverse event reporting. A review of government committee and agency reports on the FDA published during 1976–1996 produced little evidence to suggest that publicity or MDR information contributed to problem recognition, agenda setting, or the formulation of policy recommendations. ^ The research findings suggest that the reporting of breast implant problems to FDA may reflect the perceptions and concerns of the reporting groups, a barometer of the volume and content of media attention. ^
Resumo:
A face to face survey addressing environmental risk perception was conducted in January through March 2010. The 35 question survey was administered to a random sample of 73 households in El Paso, Texas. The instrument, administered in two adjacent residential communities neighboring an inactive copper smelter solicited responses about manmade and naturally occurring health risks and sources of health information that might utilized by respondents. The objective of the study was to determine if intervention which occurred in one of the communities increased residents' perception of risk to themselves and their families. The study was undertaken subsequent to increased attention from news media and public debate surrounding the request to reopen the smelter's operations. Results of the study indicated that the perception of environmental related health concerns were not significantly correlated with residence in a community receiving outreach and intervention. Both communities identified sun exposure as their greatest perceived environmental risk followed by cigarette smoking. Though industrial by products and chemical pollution were high ranking concerns, respondents indicated they felt that the decision not to reopen the smelter reduced risk in these areas. Residents expressed confidence in information received from the local health district though most indicated they received very little information from that source indicating an opportunity for public health education in this community as a strategy to address future health concerns.^