CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Risk Perception and ManagementPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Personal Cancer Knowledge and Information Seeking Through PRISM: The Planned Risk Information Seeking Model

Open access
Hovick, Shelly R., Kahlor, Leeann, Liang, Ming-Ching·2014·Journal of Health Communication
DOI 10.1080/10810730.2013.821556PMC PMC8582150
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study retested PRISM, a model of risk information seeking, and found that it is applicable to the context of cancer risk communication. The study, which used an online sample of 928 U.S. adults, also tested the effect of additional variables on that model and found that the original model better fit the data. Among the strongest predictors of cancer information seeking were seeking-related subjective norms, attitude toward seeking, perceived knowledge insufficiency, and affective risk response. Furthermore, risk perception was a strong predictor of an affective risk response. The authors suggest that, given the robustness across studies, the path between seeking-related subjective norms and seeking intention is ready to be implemented in communication practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10810730.2013.821556

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Afifi WA, & Morse CR (2009). Expanding the role of emotion in the theory of motivated information management. In Afifi WA & Afifi TD (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 87– 105). New York (NY): Routledge.
  2. Anderson JC, & Gerbing DW (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411– 423.
  3. Arora NK, Hesse BW, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, Clayman ML, & Croyle RT (2007). Frustrated and confused: The American public rates its cancer-related information-seeking experiences. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23, 223– 228. 17922166 PMC2359461
  4. Bandura A (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education and Behavior, 13, 143– 164. 15090118
  5. Beckjord EB, Rutten LJF, Arora NK, Moser RP, & Hesse BW (2008). Information processing and negative affect: Evidence from the 2003 health information national trends survey. Health Psychology, 27, 249– 257. 18377144
  6. Brown MW, & Cudeck R (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen KA & Long JS (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136– 162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  7. Case DO, Andrews JE, & Allard SL (2005). Avoiding versus seeking: The relationship between information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93, 353– 362. 16059425 PMC1175801
  8. Conner M, & Armitage CJ (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429– 1464.
  9. Duffy B, Smith K, Terhanian G, & Bremer J (2005). Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. Interactive Journal of Market Research, 47, 615– 639.
  10. Dutta-Bergman MJ (2004). An alternative approach to social capital: Exploring the linkage between health consciousness and community participation. Health Communication, 16, 393– 409. 15465687
  11. Flanagin AJ, & Metzger MJ (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515– 540.
  12. Freimuth VS, Stein JA, & Kean TJ (1989). Searching for health information: The Cancer Information Service Model. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  13. Godin G, Sheeran P, Conner M, Bélanger-Gravel A, Gallani M, & Nolin B (2010). Social structure, social cognition, and physical activity: A test of four models. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 79– 95. 19321038
  14. Hay J, Buckley TR, & Ostroff JS (2005). The role of cancer worry in cancer screening: A theoretical and empirical review of the literature. Psycho-Oncology, 14, 517– 534. 15490428
  15. Hay J, Kaphingst KA, Baser R, Li Y, Hensley-Alford S, & McBride CM (2012). Skin cancer concerns and genetic risk information-seeking in primary care. Public Health Genomics, 15(2), 57– 72. 21921576 PMC3318939
  16. Hesse B, Nelson D, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora N, Rimer B (2005). Trust and sources of health information. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 2618– 2624. 16344419
  17. Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1– 55.
  18. Huurne ET, & Gutteling J (2008). Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 847– 862.
  19. James N, Daniels H, Rahman R, McConkey C, Derry J, & Young A (2007). A study of information seeking by cancer patients and their carers. Clinical Oncology, 19, 356– 362. 17399963
  20. Johnson JD (1997). Cancer-related information seeking. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
  21. Kaphingst KA, Lachance CR, & Condit CM (2009). Beliefs about heritability of cancer and health information seeking and preventive behaviors. Journal of Cancer Education, 24, 351– 356. 19838898 PMC2769023
  22. Kline RB (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  23. Liu J-E, Mok E, Wong T, Xue L, & Xu B (2007). Evaluation of an integrated communication skills training program for nurses in cancer care in Beijing, China. Nursing Research, 56, 202– 209. 17495576
  24. Miles A, Voorwinden S, Chapman S, & Wardle J (2008). Psychologic predictors of cancer information avoidance among older adults: The role of cancer fear and fatalism. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 17, 1872– 1879. 18708374
  25. Millar R, & Shevlin M (2003). Predicting career information-seeking behavior of school pupils using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 26– 42.
  26. Pettigrew K, Fidel R, & Bruce H (2001). Conceptual frameworks in information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 35, 43– 78.
  27. Priester JR, & Petty RE (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637– 654.
  28. Rains SA (2007). Perceptions of traditional information sources and use of the World Wide Web to seek health information: Findings from the health information national trends survey. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 667– 680. 17934943
  29. Ramanadhan S, & Viswanath K (2006). Health and the information nonseeker: A profile. Health Communication, 20, 131– 139. 16965250
  30. Rimal RN, & Juon H (2010). Use of the risk perception attitude framework for promoting breast cancer prevention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 287– 310.
  31. Rimal RN, Lapinski MK, Cook RJ, & Real K (2005). Moving toward a theory of normative influences: How perceived benefits and similarity moderate the impact of descriptive norms on behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 433– 450. 16199387
  32. Ross L, Kohler CL, Grimley DM, Gree L, & Anderson-Lewis C (2006). Toward a model of prostate cancer information seeking: Identifying salient behavioral and normative beliefs among African American men. Health Education & Behavior, 34, 422– 440. 17142243
  33. Rutten LJF, Squiers L, & Hesse B (2006). Cancer-related information seeking: Hints from the 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Journal of Health Communication, 11(Suppl. 1), 147– 156. 16641080
  34. Shaw B, DuBenske L, Han JY, Cofta-Woerpel L, Bush N, Gustafson D (2008). Antecedent characteristics of online cancer information seeking among rural breast cancer patients: An application of the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing (C-SHIP) model. Journal of Health Communication, 13, 389– 408. 18569368 PMC3632214
  35. Shim M (2008). Connecting Internet use with gaps in cancer knowledge. Health Communication, 23, 448– 461. 18850392
  36. Shim M, Kelly B, & Hornick R (2006). Cancer information scanning and seeking behavior is associated with knowledge, lifestyle choices, and screening. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 157– 172. 16641081
  37. Smith-McLallen A, Fishbein M, & Hornick RC (2011). Psychosocial determinants of cancer-related information among cancer patients. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 212– 215. 21207310 PMC3069660
  38. Thompson VLS, Cavazos-Rehg P, Tate KY, & Gaier A (2008). Cancer information seeking among African Americans. Journal of Cancer Education, 23, 92– 101. 18569244
  39. Viswanath K (2005). The communications revolution and cancer control. Nature Reviews Cancer, 5, 828– 835. 16195753
  40. Viswanath K, Breen N, Meissner H, Moser RP, Hesse B, & Steele WR (2006). Cancer knowledge and disparities in the information age. Journal of Health Communication, 11(Suppl. 1), 1– 17. 16641071
  41. Weinstein ND (2007). Misleading tests of health behavior theories. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 1– 10. 17291165

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hovick, S. R., Kahlor, L., & Liang, M.-C.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Hovick, Shelly R.
ORCID
Hovick, Shelly R.
Venue
Journal of Health Communication
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-01-16
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
511-527
ISSN
  • 1081-0730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0415
DOI
10.1080/10810730.2013.821556
PMC
PMC8582150
OpenAlex
W2092278725
Cited by
135
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
17.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R25-TCA57730, CA 016672, R25CA057730, P30CA016672)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
PRISM model, risk information seeking, cancer risk communication, cancer knowledge, subjective norms, risk perception, health information seeking
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Information Services, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Neoplasms, United States, Health Behavior, Risk Assessment, Intention, Consumer Health Information, Young Adult, Information Seeking Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review