Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 91

1.

What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension.

Weinstein ND.

J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):15-20.

PMID:
10854451
2.
3.

The visual communication of risk.

Lipkus IM, Hollands JG.

J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):149-63. Review.

PMID:
10854471
4.

Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Croyle RT, Lerman C.

J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):59-66. Review.

PMID:
10854459
5.

Primer: Demystifying risk--understanding and communicating medical risks.

Crowson CS, Therneau TM, Matteson EL, Gabriel SE.

Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007 Mar;3(3):181-7; quiz 1 p following 187. Review.

PMID:
17334341
6.

[Conclusions. The precautionary principle: its advantages and risks].

Tubiana M.

Bull Acad Natl Med. 2000;184(5):969-93. French.

PMID:
11077719
7.

Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk.

Peters E.

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Apr;1128:1-7. doi: 10.1196/annals.1399.001.

PMID:
18469208
8.

Treating people with information: an analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information.

Rothman AJ, Kiviniemi MT.

J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):44-51. Review.

PMID:
10854457
9.

When the facts are just not enough: credibly communicating about risk is riskier when emotions run high and time is short.

Reynolds BJ.

Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2011 Jul 15;254(2):206-14. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2010.10.023. Epub 2010 Oct 27. Review.

PMID:
21034761
10.

South African farm workers' interpretation of risk assessment data expressed as pictograms on pesticide labels.

Rother HA.

Environ Res. 2008 Nov;108(3):419-27. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2008.07.005. Epub 2008 Aug 27.

PMID:
18755451
11.

Lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials.

Robinson EJ, Kerr CE, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Beck SR, Rowley MG.

Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(8):1-192, iii-iv.

12.

Dealing with competing and conflicting risks in cancer communication.

Kreuter MW.

J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):27-35.

PMID:
10854454
13.

Why (cancer) risk communication can be hard.

Fischhoff B.

J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):7-13.

PMID:
10854449
14.

Is there a use for tailored print communications in cancer risk communication?

Rimer BK, Glassman B.

J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;(25):140-8. Review.

PMID:
10854470
15.

Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations.

Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A.

Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):663-71. Epub 2007 Jul 24.

PMID:
17652180
16.

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses.

Williams PR.

J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;14(7):498-515. Review.

17.

Communicating risk information in genetic counseling: an observational study.

Michie S, Lester K, Pinto J, Marteau TM.

Health Educ Behav. 2005 Oct;32(5):589-98.

PMID:
16148206
18.

Understanding population and individual risk assessment: the case of polychlorinated biphenyls.

Shields PG.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 May;15(5):830-9. Review. Erratum in: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Jul;15(7):1421.

19.
20.

The developmental origins of naïve psychology in infancy.

Poulin-Dubois D, Brooker I, Chow V.

Adv Child Dev Behav. 2009;37:55-104. Review.

PMID:
19673160

Supplemental Content

Support Center