https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4964-8652
Figures
Abstract
Background
The burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is increasing. Risk perception of NCDs is an important factor towards the uptake of preventive health interventions. There are various questionnaires assessing risk perception of NCDs, but no internationally standardized questionnaire has been available. Identification of factors associated with risk perception of NCDs may facilitate the development of targeted interventions. This systematic review aims to identify available questionnaire assessing risk perception of NCDs and the factors associated with risk perception of NCDs.
Methods
The reporting of this systematic review is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out a literature search through three databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science) and targeted original article published in English between 2012 and 2021. Quality appraisal of the eligible articles was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using content analysis.
Results
A total of 86 studies were included. We found a variety of questionnaires assessing risk perception of NCDs, with many differences in their development, domains, items and validity. We also identified several personal, sociopsychological and structural factors associated with risk perception of NCDs.
Limitations
Most of the included studies were of cross-sectional design, and therefore the quality of evidence was considered low and exhibit a high risk of bias. The role of publication bias within this systematic review should be acknowledged as we did not include grey literature. Additionally, language bias must be considered as we only included English-language publications.
Citation: Jane Ling MY, Ahmad N, Aizuddin AN (2023) Risk perception of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review on its assessment and associated factors. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286518
Editor: Ghobad Moradi, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
Received: July 7, 2022; Accepted: May 17, 2023; Published: June 1, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Jane Ling et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are chronic diseases which tend to have long duration. The main types of NCD include cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), cancers, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes (DM) [1]. NCDs kill 41 million every year, which is equivalent to 71% of worldwide deaths. The total annual number of NCD deaths is expected to increase to 55 million if the current trend continues [2]. Study also reported that NCDs impose a great impact on both households and impoverishment globally, at all levels of development [3]. Furthermore, the rising national health-care budget and the loss of productivity or ability to work due to NCDs pose serious and growing threats to many nations’ economic stability [4].
In general, NCDs occur due to the combination of several factors, including genetic, physiological, environment and behavioural factors [1]. Behavioural factors such as harmful use of alcohol, physical inactivity, salt intake and tobacco use are modifiable [5]. An individual’s behaviour is determined by many factors. According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, behaviours are determined by behavioural intentions [6], while Social Leaning Theory posits that behaviour is determined by expectancies, incentives and self-efficacy [7]. Additionally, the Health Belief Model (HBM) hypothesizes that health-related behaviour depends on risk perception [7]. The term “risk perception” is defined as an individual’s subjective judgement of the risk related to some event [8].
According to the HBM, there are four types of risk perception, including perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits and perceived barriers. Perceived susceptibility refers to the subjective risk of contracting a health condition, while perceived severity is the judgement on degree of seriousness of a given health condition. In addition, perceived benefits refers to an individual’s estimate that a given behaviour will be effective in reducing the threat of disease, while perceived barrier refers to the barriers that must be overcome to follow the health recommendation [7, 9]. An individual’s perceived risk of developing a disease is an important factor towards adopting healthy lifestyles and the uptake of preventive health interventions [10].
Many studies have been conducted to assess the perceived risk of developing NCDs. The use of questionnaire as an instrument to measure an individual’s risk perception of NCDs has been widely adopted [10, 11]. The reason for such wide adoption is that the use of questionnaire is a feasible and inexpensive method for data collection. This method can also be used on a large number of respondents, enabling statistical analysis that give more significant power than other methods [11]. A robust questionnaire is essential in ensuring reliable and valid measurement of risk perception of NCDs. Hence, validity of questionnaire is an important consideration when choosing an instrument for assessing risk perception of NCDs.
To better understand risk perception of NCDs, identification of its associated factors is essential. Literatures have highlighted several factors associated with risk perception of certain disease, including personal factor variables [demographic: age, ethnicity, income; lifestyle: smoking; health history: body mass index (BMI), family history of the disease] [9, 12–14] sociopsychological variables (cognitive factor, affective factor, personality and coping, perception of own health) [9, 13, 14] and structural variables (knowledge about the disease, prior contact with the disease) [9, 15].
Despite the potential usefulness of the available questionnaires for assessing risk perception of NCDs, to our knowledge, there are no systematic reviews that summarize these instruments and assess their validity. Previous systematic review also focused on factors that specifically influence risk perception of certain disease, such as cancer [14], while literatures synthesizing data regarding factors influencing several major NCDs are lacking. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to identify available questionnaire for assessing risk perception of NCDs and to characterize the existing literatures on factors associated with risk perception NCDs. This synthesis will assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate instrument for assessing risk perception of NCDs, and form an empirically-grounded conceptual framework for future NCD risk communication research.
Materials and methods
The reporting of this systematic review is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [16] (S1 Appendix). The outcomes which are not related to patient or clinical outcome prevented the protocol to be included in the PROSPERO registration [17].
Research question formulation
The review question was developed using the PEO (population, exposure, outcome) concept [18]. The PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) framework is commonly used in assessing the effectiveness of an intervention or therapy. As this review will focus on the relationship between certain risk factors and a health outcome, the use of PEO concept is recommended [18]. In this systematic review, population refers to general population, exposure refers to associated factors of risk perception of non-communicable disease and outcome is risk perception of non-communicable diseases. The main review questions are: (1) Is there any available questionnaire to assess risk perception of non-communicable diseases? (2) What are the factors associated with the risk perception of non-communicable diseases?
Data source and search strategy
The literature search was conducted in December 2021, including three databases: Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. In addition, hand searching of the reference lists of included studies was undertaken to identify further relevant references. The keywords used for the searching of related articles are provided in Table 1. There were 3,346 records identified from the three databases and 5 records identified from hand searching. Automated tools were used and 1,578 record were excluded based on year, publication type and language. A total of 767 duplicate records were found and removed, leaving 1,006 records for title screening (Fig 1). The records were exported from the databases into an Excel sheet for screening.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria were: (1) publication from 2012–2021; (2) publication in English language; (3) original article (4) described questionnaire that explicitly assessed risk perception of non-communicable diseases or questionnaire that contained at least five items measuring risk perception of non-communicable diseases, and 5) described associated factors of risk perception of non-communicable diseases. We limited the publication date to 2012 and 2021 (articles published in the past 10 years) so that we can build our systematic review on the recent literature considering the dynamic pattern of risk perception [19, 20]. Non-original articles such as conference proceedings, commentary, reports, review articles and systematic reviews were excluded.
Study selection
Two authors (JLMY and NA) screened the titles and abstracts independently based on the review questions. A total of 915 articles were removed during the screening. For the remaining 91 articles, 90 full-text were retrieved for assessment of eligibility, while the remaining one article was inaccessible due to post-publication correction [21]. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third researcher (ANA) to reach consensus. 4 articles were removed as two articles focused on accuracy of risk perception on breast cancer [22, 23] and another two articles described the validation of questionnaire assessing awareness but not perception of breast cancer [24, 25], leaving a total of 86 articles to proceed with quality appraisal.
Quality appraisal was conducted by JLMY and ANA on all studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [26]. The MMAT is a critical appraisal tool which is developed to appraise studies included in systematic mixed study reviews. The methodology quality of five categories of studies (qualitative study, randomized control trials, non-randomized studies, quantitative descriptive study and mixed methods study) can be appraised using this tool. For each category, five criteria are used to assess the quality of the study.
Data extraction and synthesis
JLMY and NA extracted the data independently using a standardized data extraction form which is organized using Microsoft Excel. Information collected in the form include: (1) author, (2) publication year, (3) reference, (4) country, (5) study design, (6) statistical analysis and (7) results. Fig 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram. Data synthesis was achieved using content analysis in order to condense text into fewer content-related categories [27].
Results
Background of the eligible studies
A total of 86 studies were included in this systematic review (Tables 2 and 3). Slightly less than half of the studies (n = 40) were conducted in United States of America (USA). Other studies were conducted in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Myanmar, Netherland, Nigeria, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey and the United Kingdom (UK). A total of 45 articles were published between the year 2012 to 2016, while 41 articles were published between 2017 to 2021.
Majority of the included studies were quantitative studies (84 cross-sectional studies and one cohort study), while one study was of mixed methods design. Most of the studies (n = 72) explored the associated factors of risk perception of NCDs, while 11 studies described the questionnaire for assessing risk perception of NCDs. Three studies describe both the questionnaire used to assess risk perception of NCDs, as well as the associated factors of risk perception of NCDs.
Table 2 shows the characteristics of the included studies related to questionnaire assessing risk perception of NCDs, including the measurement/s, study population, item development, analysis for validation and appraisal scoring. Table 3 shows the characteristics of the included studies related to associated factors of risk perception of NCDs, including the statistical analysis, associated factors, outcome (type of NCD) and quality appraisal scoring.
Questionnaires measuring risk perception of NCDs
A total of six questionnaires were developed to measure risk perception of a group of NCDs, including CVDs, DM, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, stroke, hypertension and cancer [31, 34–37, 40]. In other eight studies, the questionnaires were designed to measure risk perception of single NCD, including breast cancer [30, 32], cervical cancer [38], coronary heart disease [41], skin cancer [39], CVDs [29], CKD [33] and prostate cancer [28].
Of all the questionnaires, five were developed based on established theory or model such as the Health Belief Model and/or Transtheoretical Model [28, 31, 33, 36, 37]. A total of nine questionnaires were either adapted from previous questionnaires, developed based on literature review and/or expert opinion [29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38–41]. All these questionnaires are available in a variety of languages such as English [34], Arabic [35], Yoruba [28], Malay [33], Chinese [41], Dutch [29] and Spanish [30].
All except four questionnaires [28, 30, 34, 37] explicitly assessed risk perception of NCDs. These four questionnaires are not intended only to measure risk perception of NCDs, but also focus on assessment of other components such as knowledge of NCDs and health behaviour [28, 34]. The total number of items in each of the included questionnaires ranges from six to 61, measured using Likert scales ranging from four to 10. The 5-point Likert scale is the most commonly used in the questionnaires.
In terms of validation, five questionnaires were only evaluated for either content validity and/or face validity [28, 34, 36, 38, 41]. A total of four studies used only exploratory factor analysis for validation of questionnaires [30, 37, 39, 40], while five questionnaires were well validated using both exploratory and confirmatory factory analysis [29, 31–33, 35].
Associated factors of risk perception of NCDs
Most of the studies (n = 72) reported associations between personal factors with risk perception of NCDs, including hypertension, DM, CVDs, CKD, cancers, stroke, osteoporosis and severe depression (Fig 2). A total of 24 studies reported associations between sociopsychological factors with risk perception of NCDs, while 16 studies reported associations between structural factors with risk perception of NCDs.
Personal factors.
Personal factors including demographic, lifestyle and health history factors [14] were found to be associated with risk perception of NCDs. The identified demographic factors were gender, age, ethnicity, religion, education level, income and marital status. 16 studies examined associations between gender and risk perception of NCDs. A total of 30 and 12 studies reported associations between age and ethnicity with risk perception of NCDs.
Only one study each reported association between religion and marital status with NCD risk perception. A total of 11 studies reported associations between education level and NCD risk perception, while five studies found associations between income and risk perception of NCDs.
Several lifestyle factors were identified, including physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, sweet consumption, number of sexual partner and age at sexual debut. A total of five and ten studies reported associations between physical activity and smoking with NCD risk perception. Three and two studies reported associations between alcohol intake and sexual behaviour with NCD risk perception. Only one study reported association between sweets consumption and risk perception of DM.
The health history factors found to be associated with risk perception of NCDs include BMI, waist circumference, 2-hour glucose level, cholesterol level, blood pressure level, underlying NCD, underlying sexually transmitted disease, history of gestational DM, HIV status, use of oral pill/ injectable contraception, prior screening for NCD, family history of NCD and number of relative with NCD.
A total of 17 and two studies reported associations between BMI and waist circumference with NCD risk perception, respectively. Several studies (n = 14) reported associations between underlying comorbidities such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, underlying NCDs, history of gestational DM, history of sexually transmitted disease and HIV positivity with risk perception of NCDs.
Only one study reported association between the use of hormonal contraception with risk perception of breast cancer. Three studies reported associations between prior screening of NCD with risk perception of NCD. A total of 31 studies reported associations between family history of NCD and/or number of relative with NCD with risk perception of NCDs.
Sociopsychological factors.
Several sociopsychological factors were found to be associated with risk perception of NCDs, namely social exposure to NCD, perceived stigma by others, insured status, worry, distress, personal control, conscientiousness, emotional stability, optimistic bias, belief in the genetic cause of NCD, perceived oneself as overweight, believing overweight is a personal health problem, perceived risk of HPV exposure and perception of own health status.
Only one study reported association between social exposure to NCD and perception of stigma by other with risk perception of NCDs, while three studies found association between insured status and risk perception of NCDs. Emotional status such as worry and distress have been associated with risk perception of NCDs in five and one study, respectively.
Only one study found that greater personal control was associated with higher DM risk perception. Personality traits such as conscientiousness, emotional stability and optimistic were also found to be associated with risk perception of NCDs in three studies. Previous studies (n = 2) have occasionally examined health beliefs, while 11 studies reported associations between perception regarding own health and risk perception of NCDs.
Structural factors.
In addition to personal and sociopsychological factors that may influence NCD risk perception, structural factors were also identified. Under structural factors, several knowledge-related factors were identified, such as knowledge of NCD (n = 7), history of genetic counselling (n = 1), either discussed with or informed by healthcare professional about risk of NCD (n = 4), received recommendation for NCD screening by healthcare professional (n = 1) and discussion on NCD risk in the family (n = 1).
Critical appraisal of the included studies
The studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [26]. The authors advised not to calculate overall score from the rating of each criterion using the latest version of MMAT (2018). However, due to problems faced by researchers in reporting the MMAT results, suggestion was provided for reporting of an overall score (5*****/100% quality criteria met; 4****/80% quality criteria met; 3***/60% quality criteria met; 2**/40% quality criteria met; 1*/20% quality criteria met). Of the included studies, 48 studies were given the score of 60%, while other 9, 25 and 4 studies were given the score of 100%, 80% and 40%, respectively. S2 File shows the scores of MMAT for each included study.
Discussion
An individual’s risk perception of developing a disease is an important factor towards adopting healthy lifestyles and the uptake of preventive health interventions. To date, there has been no systematic review which has summarized the questionnaires assessing risk perception of NCDs and evaluated the evidence of factors influencing the risk perception of several major NCDs. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to identify the best available evidence on questionnaire assessing risk perception of NCDs and factors associated with risk perception of NCDs. In this systematic review of 86 studies, we summarized the available questionnaire assessing risk perception of NCDs. We also identified several key personal, sociopsychological and structural factors associated with risk perception of NCDs.
Questionnaires measuring risk perception of NCDs
This review has identified questionnaires that explicitly assessed risk perception of NCDs or included at least five items assessing risk perception of NCDs. These questionnaires that assessed risk perception of NCDs pose very different questions, as they were developed based on different model, theory or adapted from different studies. Nevertheless, most of these questionnaires comprehensively measure various dimensions of risk perception of NCDs given the multi-dimensional nature of the concept.
For example, questionnaire developed by Mya et al included five domains of risk perception, namely perceived susceptibility, perceived benefit, perceived barrier, self-efficacy and behavioural change intention [31], while another questionnaire included 6 domains, namely perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefit, perceived barriers, perceived cues to action and perceived self-efficacy [36]. Similarly, in other study assessing multidimensional construct such as empowerment in the cancer population, a questionnaire including several different but related dimensions of empowerment was used [110]. The multiple dimensions of the included questionnaires can contribute to simultaneous data collection on multiple dimensions of NCD risk perception with reduced bias.
The strength of the questionnaires included in this review is their comprehensiveness within a relatively short questionnaire. For example, the 48-item questionnaire by Agarwal et al can be completed within 20 minutes which is acceptable without overloading the respondents [34]. Additionally, the questionnaire by Anuar et al that explicitly assessed risk perception of NCD contains the most items (61) among all included questionnaires [33]. Nevertheless, the completion time of this questionnaire is expected to be much shorter compared with other comprehensive survey that require up to two hours [111]. With the short duration of administration, the included questionnaires seem applicable in various settings including clinical and research settings.
Regarding the validity, only a few of the included questionnaires tested construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis. The lack of construct validity assessment is also commonly seen in questionnaires assessing other constructs such as empowerment in cancer patients and parenting style [112, 113]. Hence, more research is needed to understand whether the included questionnaires measure the NCD risk perception construct. In terms of mode of application, most of the included questionnaires used self-administered approach, which might improve their concurrent validity and reduce social desirability response bias as compared with interview approach [114]. Nevertheless, these questionnaires do not seem applicable in cross-country studies due to the validation in specific languages suitable for certain countries or region.
Associated factors of risk perception of NCDs
Demographic factors including gender, age, ethnicity, religion, education level, income and marital status play a role in risk perception of NCDs. Even though many studies reported that women were more likely to perceived themselves to be at risk of NCDs [45, 80, 82], contradicting results have been reported [54, 88]. Sulaiman et al postulated that the lower risk perception of DM among women may be due to optimism bias, which is a cognitive bias that cause them to believe that they are less likely to experience a negative event [54].
Ample evidence exists regarding the association between age and risk perception of NCDs. The higher risk perception of NCDs among those of older age is explainable, as NCDs are often associated with older age due to the higher prevalence of NCDs in the older age group [1, 115]. Nevertheless, Kowall et al also suggested an explanation that older people perceive themselves to be at lower risk of NCDs due to their shorter life expectancy [67].
The association between ethnicity and risk perception of NCDs has been shown in the literature. The difference of risk perception between different ethnicities may be attributable to cultural salient factors such as wishful thinking, fatalistic beliefs and medical mistrust [61]. This finding highlights the need for further exploration of how cultural factors influence risk perception of NCDs. The higher risk perception of NCDs among people with higher educational attainment may be explained by the higher health literacy among people with higher educational attainment [116]. On the other hand, people with lower educational attainment may perceive themselves to be at risk of NCDs as they tend to be in the lower socioeconomic status group, which bears a disproportionate burden of NCDs [1].
The concerns of high socioeconomic status people about NCDs may be related to health literacy exposure, shaped by messages and media, as well as communication of health care professional [117]. However, those who had lower income may feel that they are more likely to be exposed to certain environmental hazards, which makes them feel vulnerable to cancer [85]. The higher risk perception of cervical cancer among married women may be due to the well-known fact that married women had higher risk of HPV infection hence at increased risk of cervical cancer [118].
Lifestyle factors associated with risk perception of NCDs included physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, sweet consumption and sexual behaviour. The knowledge regarding the benefit of physical activity in preventing NCDs might lead to lower risk perception among those who are physically active [15]. However, higher level of physical activity was not found to predict lower NCD risk perception in a cohort study, which might be due to their weakness in measurement of physical activity whereby different items were used at baseline and follow-up [46].
The higher risk perception of NCDs among smokers might be expected, as the adverse health effects of smoking is well known, particularly risk of cancers, CVD and respiratory diseases [119–121]. Similarly, the increased risk perception of NCDs accompanying alcohol consumption may reflect an appropriate awareness of the risk of alcohol consumption. Additionally, the positive association between sweets consumption and risk perception of DM may be explainable as the fact that consumption of sugar-containing food can lead to DM is well known [122, 123].
We also observed reported association between sexual behaviour and risk perception of NCDs. The higher risk perception of cervical cancer among those who had more sex partners is not surprising, as those who had more lifetime sexual partners and those practicing risky sexual lifestyle were more likely to be diagnosed with human papillomavirus infection which increases their risk of cervical cancer [64].
Health history factors associated with NCD risk perception included BMI, waist circumference, 2-hour glucose level, cholesterol level, blood pressure level, underlying NCD, underlying sexually transmitted disease, history of gestational DM, HIV status, use of oral pill/ injectable contraception, prior screening for NCD, family history of NCD and number of relative with NCD. The positive relationship between anthropometric values such as BMI and waist circumference with risk perception of NCD indicate that people seem to associate those readily visible factors with the risk of NCDs.
In addition to prior screening for NCD, underlying comorbidities such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol level, and pre-existing communicable and non-communicable diseases have also been associated with risk perception of NCDs. Those who had prior screening for NCD and underlying comorbidity may have more opportunity of receiving health counselling or advice from health care provider and therefore more likely to perceive risk for NCDs [83, 101].
The higher risk perception of breast cancer among those using hormonal contraception is possibly due to the established fact that hormonal contraception increases the risk of breast cancer [124]. There is also ample evidence to support the relationship between family history of NCDs and risk perception of NCDs. For certain NCDs such as DM and cancers, family history is among the important risk factors, which reflects an individual’s genetic predisposition for these NCDs [13, 125]. Therefore, it was not surprising that those with family history of NCDs perceived higher risk of developing those NCDs.
Sociopsychological factors including social exposure to NCD, perceived stigma by others, insured status, worry, distress, personal control, conscientiousness, emotional stability, optimistic bias, belief in the genetic cause of NCD, perceived oneself as overweight, believing overweight is a personal health problem, perceived risk of HPV exposure and perception of own health status may also play a role in NCD risk perception. The association between social exposure to NCD and personality traits (conscientiousness, emotional stability, optimistic) with risk perception of NCD is well supported by the Health Belief Model which suggested that prior contact of certain disease and personality can influence an individual’s risk perception of the disease [9].
The relationship between perception of stigmatized by other with risk perception of NCDs may be explained by the greater awareness of chronic disease among those who perceived stigma from others [84]. Studies also reported lower risk perception of NCDs among uninsured person, which may be a result of change in attitude as a form of self-protection. For example, those who are uninsured may feel that they cannot afford screening for cancer, causing them to push concerns about risk from their minds [71].
Emotional status such as worry and distress have been found to be associated with risk perception of NCDs. In view of these findings, future health interventions need to address NCD-related worry and distress to motivate health-related behaviours. Greater personal control was associated with higher risk perception of DM. However, this finding is contrary to the findings by Kim et al, which may be attributed to differences in the nature and composition of study sample [126]. Based on this literature, health belief may be important in risk perception of NCDs. This finding is in agreement with the Health Belief Model which proposed that sociopsychological factors can influence risk perception of an individual [9].
Literature also consistently reported association between perception regarding own health with risk perception of NCDs. The greater risk perception of DM among those who perceived themselves as overweight is possibly due to the higher health literacy, making them understand and aware that being overweight increases their risk for DM [103]. The lower risk perception of NCDs among those who perceived good health status warrants further studies to investigate effective methods to communicate risk of NCDs among this group of individuals especially those who are at high risk of NCDs.
Structural factors associated with NCD risk perception included several knowledge-related factors, namely knowledge of NCD, history of genetic counselling, either discussed with or informed by healthcare professional about risk of NCD, received recommendation for NCD screening by healthcare professional and discussion on NCD risk in the family. In general, it is not surprising that, those who were more knowledgeable about certain NCD had high risk perception of NCD. Furthermore the Health Belief Model also identified knowledge as a factor that can influence risk perception towards certain disease [9].
Strengths and limitations
As with any research, this systematic review is not without limitations. Most of the included studies were of cross-sectional design, and therefore the quality of evidence was considered to be low and exhibit a high risk of bias. Another limitation relates to the measurement of risk perception of NCDs. Many studies assessed risk perception of NCDs using only a single item [46, 58, 82], which is insufficient to assess the multiple dimensions of the NCDs. Improving the measurement of risk perception of NCDs could help standardize the NCD risk perception literature.
The role of publication bias within this systematic review should be acknowledged as we did not include grey literature. We acknowledge the value of grey literature in systematic reviews. However, this systematic review did not include grey literature, in part due to the difficulty in searching and retrieving these documents, as well as time constraints. Another limitation is that we did not consult experts for source recommendations. Additionally, language bias must be considered as we only included English-language publications. Nevertheless, our search strategy has resulted in literature sourced from various countries where English is not the first language (China, Hong Kong, Italy, Spain). One of the strengths of this review is that we have included both questionnaires that explicitly assessed risk perception of NCDs, as well as questionnaires that included at least five items related to risk perception of NCDs. This process increased the chances of identifying items related to risk perception of NCDs for future research. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review synthetizing research evidence on risk perception of several major NCDs, highlighting the available questionnaire assessing NCD risk perception and the correlates of perceived risk of acquiring NCDs.
Conclusion
This systematic review may serve as a guideline for researchers who intend to measure risk perception of NCDs, as the results provide an overview of the components included in those questionnaires, which can provide guidance in the choice of questionnaire. Nevertheless, further evidence is needed to support the validity of these questionnaires. In view of this limitation, researchers should pay attention in assessing validity in future questionnaire development work.
This systematic review also highlighted several key factors related to the risk perception of NCDs. All these key factors deserve further exploration in longitudinal and experimental studies. Based on the synthesized evidence, health interventions addressing risk perception of NCDs should not only focus on facts about personal factors (demographic, lifestyle and health history factors), but also on the sociopsychological and structural factors that may influence the risk perception of NCDs particularly among those at risk of NCDs.
Supporting information
S2 File. Critical appraisal of selected studies using MMAT.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286518.s003
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Department of Public Health Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, for the technical support.
References
- 1.
WHO. Fact Sheet: Noncommunicable Diseases.2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases.
- 2.
WHO. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013–2020.2013. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506236.
- 3. Jaspers L, Colpani V, Chaker L, van der Lee SJ, Muka T, Imo D, et al. The global impact of non-communicable diseases on households and impoverishment: a systematic review. European Journal of Epidemiology 2015;30(3):163–88. pmid:25527371
- 4.
Bloom DE, Cafiero ET, Jané-Llopis E, Abrahams-Gessel S, Bloom LR, Fathima S, et al. The Global Economic Burden of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: World Economic Forum.2011. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harvard_HE_GlobalEconomicBurdenNonCommunicableDiseases_2011.pdf.
- 5.
WHO. Noncommunicable diseases country profiles 2018.2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/274512.
- 6. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 1991;50(2):179–211.
- 7. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health education quarterly 1988;15(2):175–83. pmid:3378902
- 8. Beyerl K, Putz O, Breckwoldt A. The role of perceptions for community-based marine resource management. Frontiers in Marine Science 2016;3:238.
- 9. Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the health belief model. Health education monographs 1974;2(4):328–35.
- 10. Zhao Y, Ni Q, Zhou R. What factors influence the mobile health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of age. International Journal of Information Management 2018;43:342–50.
- 11. Pasi H, Isa ZM, Shah SA. Perceived Risk of Developing Cancer in a Suburban Community in Malaysia. Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP. 2018;19(2):395. pmid:29479988
- 12. Chalian H, Khoshpouri P, Assari S. Demographic, Social, and Behavioral Determinants of Lung Cancer Perceived Risk and Worries in a National Sample of American Adults; Does Lung Cancer Risk Matter? Medicina. 2018;54(6):97. pmid:30513895
- 13. Khan RK, Misra R, Shawley-Brzoska S, Wen S. Predictors of diabetes risk perception among college students. Journal of American College Health 2020:1–7. pmid:33048650
- 14. Tilburt JC, James KM, Sinicrope PS, Eton DT, Costello BA, Carey J, et al. Factors influencing cancer risk perception in high risk populations: a systematic review. Hereditary cancer in clinical practice 2011;9(1):1–15.
- 15. Chopra I, Chopra A. Risk perception for diabetes in Appalachian women. Women & health 2017;57(5):534–50. pmid:27067131
- 16. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj 2021;372.
- 17.
National Institute for Health Research. PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
- 18. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC medical research methodology 2018;18(1):1–9.
- 19. Sherlaw W, Raude J. Why the French did not choose to panic: a dynamic analysis of the public response to the influenza pandemic. Sociology of health & illness 2013;35(2):332–44. pmid:23030815
- 20. Gidengil CA, Parker AM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Trends in risk perceptions and vaccination intentions: a longitudinal study of the first year of the H1N1 pandemic. American journal of public health. 2012;102(4):672–9. pmid:22397349
- 21. Mueller NM, Hyams T, King‐Marshall EC, Curbow BA. Colorectal cancer knowledge and perceptions among individuals below the age of 50. Psycho‐Oncology. 2022;31(3):436–41. pmid:34546622
- 22. Bojanic K, Vukadin S, Grgic K, Malenica L, Sarcevic F, Smolic R, et al. The accuracy of breast cancer risk self-assessment does not correlate with knowledge about breast cancer and knowledge and attitudes towards primary chemoprevention. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2020;20:101229. pmid:33145151
- 23. Kartal M, Ozcakar N, Hatipoglu S, Tan MN, Guldal AD. Breast cancer risk perceptions of Turkish women attending primary care: a cross-sectional study. BMC women’s health 2014;14(1):1–8. pmid:25476701
- 24. Rakkapao N, Promthet S, Moore MA, Hurst CP. Development of a breast cancer awareness scale for Thai women: Moving towards a validated measure. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2016;17(2):851–6. pmid:26925691
- 25. Solikhah S, Promthet S, Rakkapao N, Hurst CP. Validation of an Indonesian version of the breast cancer awareness scale (BCAS-I). Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention: APJCP. 2017;18(2):515. pmid:28345839
- 26. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information 2018;34(4):285–91.
- 27. Cavanagh S. Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse researcher. 1997;4(3):5–16. pmid:27285770
- 28. Adedeji IA, Lawal SA, Aluko‐Arowolo S, Oduwole EO. Men in rural Nigeria have a poor perception of prostate cancer risk; Hence they seldom seek screening. Psycho‐Oncology. 2021;30(5):773–9. pmid:33527550
- 29. Hassen HY, Aerts N, Demarest S, Manzar MD, Abrams S, Bastiaens H. Validation of the Dutch-Flemish translated ABCD questionnaire to measure cardiovascular diseases knowledge and risk perception among adults. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):1–10.
- 30. Martínez-Urquijo A, Postigo Á, Cuesta M, Fernández-Álvarez MdM, Martín-Payo R. Development and validation of the MARA scale in Spanish to assess knowledge and perceived risks and barriers relating to breast cancer prevention. Cancer Causes & Control 2021;32(11):1237–45. pmid:34236574
- 31. Mya KS, Zaw KK, Mya KM. Developing and validating a questionnaire to assess an individual’s perceived risk of four major non-communicable diseases in Myanmar. Plos one. 2021;16(4):e0234281. pmid:33905409
- 32. Taylan S, Özkan İ, Adıbelli D. Breast Cancer Perception Scale: Psychometric Development Study. European Journal of Breast Health 2021;17(2):95. pmid:33870107
- 33. Anuar H, Shah SA, Gafor AHA, Mahmood MI. The chronic kidney disease perception scale (CKDPS): development and construct validation. BMC nephrology 2020;21(1):1–12. pmid:33028217
- 34. Agarwal G, Pirrie M, Angeles R, Marzanek F, Parascandalo J. Development of the Health Awareness and Behaviour Tool (HABiT): reliability and suitability for a Canadian older adult population. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 2019;38(1):1–11.
- 35. Alaa H, Shah SA. Perceived susceptibility to chronic disease among healthy people questionnaire: development, validity and reliability among young Iraqi adults. Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine 2018;18(1).
- 36. Kaba Z, Khamisa N, Tshuma N. Age-group differences in risk perceptions of non-communicable diseases among adults in Diepsloot township, Johannesburg, South Africa: A cross-sectional study based on the Health Belief Model. South African medical journal 2017;107(9):797–804. pmid:28875891
- 37. Woringer M, Nielsen JJ, Zibarras L, Evason J, Kassianos AP, Harris M, et al. Development of a questionnaire to evaluate patients’ awareness of cardiovascular disease risk in England’s National Health Service Health Check preventive cardiovascular programme. BMJ open. 2017;7(9):e014413. pmid:28947435
- 38. Lin Y-J, Fan L-W, Tu Y-C. Perceived risk of human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer among adolescent women in Taiwan. Asian nursing research. 2016;10(1):45–50. pmid:27021834
- 39. Morales-Sánchez M, Peralta-Pedrero M, Domínguez-Gómez M. Design and validation of a questionnaire for measuring perceived risk of skin cancer. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas 2014;105(3):276–85. pmid:24661958
- 40. Hafizah P, Zaleha M, Shamsul A. The validation of questionnaire on risk perception of developing five most common non-communicable diseases in Malaysia. J Nurs Health Sci. 2013;1:29–35.
- 41. Chan CW, Leung SF. Differences in perceptions of coronary disease among Hong Kong Chinese: Implications for the societal readiness in disease prevention. Psychology, health & medicine 2012;17(3):366–75. pmid:21942781
- 42. Fein LA, Cunha IR, Wong A, Schlumbrecht MP, Duthely LM, Potter JE. Low Perceived Anal Cancer Risk and Screening Utilization Among High-Risk Transgender Men and Women Living in an HIV/STI Epicenter. AIDS and Behavior 2021;25(7):2210–8. pmid:33394166
- 43.
Grauman Å, Veldwijk J, James S, Hansson M, Byberg L. Good general health and lack of family history influence the underestimation of cardiovascular risk: a cross-sectional study. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 2021.
- 44. Osei E, Osei Afriyie S, Oppong S, Ampofo E, Amu H. Perceived Breast Cancer Risk among Female Undergraduate Students in Ghana: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Oncology. 2021;2021.
- 45.
Turner J, Pond GR, Tremblay A, Johnston M, Goss G, Nicholas G, et al. Risk Perception Among a Lung Cancer Screening Population. Chest. 2021.
- 46. Vornanen M, Konttinen H, Peltonen M, Haukkala A. Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Perception and Risk Indicators: a 5-Year Follow-up. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2021;28(3):337–48. pmid:32808182
- 47. Zarghami F, Allahverdipour H, Asghari Jafarabadi M. Lung Cancer Risk Perception Among Older Smokers; a Cross-sectional Study. International Journal of Cancer Management. 2021;14(1).
- 48. Abshire DA, Graves JM, Dawson RM. Rural-urban differences in college students’ cardiovascular risk perceptions. Journal of American College Health 2020;68(5):477–83. pmid:30908130
- 49. Antwi J, Lavin R, Sullivan S, Bellavia M. Perception of and risk factors for type 2 diabetes among students attending an upstate New York college: a pilot study. Diabetology & metabolic syndrome 2020;12(1):1–8. pmid:32256715
- 50. Khlaifat AM, Al-Hadid LA, Dabbour RS, Shoqirat N. Cross-sectional survey on the diabetes knowledge, risk perceptions and practices among university students in South Jordan. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders 2020;19(2):849–58. pmid:33520807
- 51. Palmero EI, Campacci N, Schüler-Faccini L, Giugliani R, d Rocha JCC, Vargas FR, et al. Cancer-related worry and risk perception in Brazilian individuals seeking genetic counseling for hereditary breast cancer. Genetics and molecular biology 2020;43. pmid:32325485
- 52. Russell V, Ogilvie G, Beksinska M, Nyrenda M, Mitchell-Foster S, Lavoie J, et al. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer risk perception and vaccine acceptability among adolescent girls and young women in Durban, South Africa. South African Medical Journal 2020;110(9):887–93. pmid:32880274
- 53. Stol DM, Hollander M, Damman OC, Nielen MM, Badenbroek IF, Schellevis FG, et al. Mismatch between self-perceived and calculated cardiometabolic disease risk among participants in a prevention program for cardiometabolic disease: a cross-sectional study. BMC public health. 2020;20:1–9.
- 54. Sulaiman S, Leelavathi M, Norasyikin A. Risk perception and knowledge regarding diabetes among offspring of type 2 diabetics at a tertiary institution. The Medical Journal of Malaysia 2020;75(6):655–9. pmid:33219173
- 55. Gibson EG, Gage JC, Castle PE, Scarinci IC. Perceived susceptibility to cervical cancer among African American women in the Mississippi Delta: does adherence to screening matter? Women’s Health Issues 2019;29(1):38–47. pmid:30401612
- 56. Guo J, Tang Y, Zhang H, Lommel L, Chen J-L. The risk, perceived and actual, of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus for mothers of preschool children in urban China. PloS one. 2019;14(9):e0222839. pmid:31560718
- 57. Hall IJ, Soman A, Smith JL, White A, Crawford A. Perceived risk of colorectal and breast cancers among women who are overweight or with obesity. Preventive medicine reports 2019;14:100845. pmid:31008025
- 58. Heidemann C, Paprott R, Stühmann LM, Baumert J, Mühlenbruch K, Hansen S, et al. Perceived diabetes risk and related determinants in individuals with high actual diabetes risk: results from a nationwide population-based survey. BMJ Open Diabetes Research and Care 2019;7(1):e000680. pmid:31297223
- 59. Hsueh L, Peña JM, Hirsh AT, de Groot M, Stewart JC. Diabetes risk perception among immigrant and racial/ethnic minority adults in the United States. The Diabetes Educator 2019;45(6):642–51. pmid:31725364
- 60. Pelullo CP, Rossiello R, Nappi R, Napolitano F, Di Giuseppe G. Diabetes prevention: Knowledge and perception of risk among Italian population. BioMed research international 2019;2019. pmid:31781605
- 61. Perez GK, Gareen IF, Sicks J, Lathan C, Carr A, Kumar P, et al. Racial Differences in Smoking-related Disease Risk Perceptions Among Adults Completing Lung Cancer Screening: Follow-up Results from the ACRIN/NLST Ancillary Study. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities. 2019;6(4):676–85. pmid:30737732
- 62. Turbitt E, Roberts MC, Taber JM, Waters EA, McNeel TS, Biesecker BB, et al. Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Preventive medicine 2019;123:12–9. pmid:30817954
- 63. Skøt L, Nielsen JB, Leppin A. Who perceives a higher personal risk of developing type 2 diabetes? A cross-sectional study on associations between personality traits, health-related behaviours and perceptions of susceptibility among university students in Denmark. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1–10. pmid:30075710
- 64. Wilson KL, Cowart CJ, Rosen BL, Pulczinski JC, Solari KD, Ory MG, et al. Characteristics associated with HPV diagnosis and perceived risk for cervical cancer among unmarried, sexually active college women. Journal of Cancer Education 2018;33(2):404–16. pmid:27896666
- 65. Butler KM, Rayens MK, Wiggins AT, Rademacher KB, Hahn EJ. Association of smoking in the home with lung cancer worry, perceived risk, and synergistic risk. Oncology nursing forum. 2017;44(2):E55. pmid:28222077
- 66. Desgraz B, Collet T-H, Rodondi N, Cornuz J, Clair C. Comparison of self-perceived cardiovascular disease risk among smokers with Framingham and PROCAM scores: a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomised controlled trial. BMJ open. 2017;7(1):e012063. pmid:28062468
- 67. Kowall B, Rathmann W, Stang A, Bongaerts B, Kuss O, Herder C, et al. Perceived risk of diabetes seriously underestimates actual diabetes risk: The KORA FF4 study. PloS one. 2017;12(1):e0171152. pmid:28141837
- 68. Osazuwa-Peters N, Boakye EA, Chen BY, Clancy J, Vallot PL, Su JL, et al. Sociodemographic factors associated with knowledge and risk perception of human papillomavirus and human papillomavirus–associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma among a predominantly black population. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery 2017;143(2):117–24. pmid:27711922
- 69. Silverman KR, Ohman-Strickland PA, Christian AH. Perceptions of cancer risk: differences by weight status. Journal of Cancer Education 2017;32(2):357–63. pmid:26553326
- 70. Taber JM, Klein WM, Suls JM, Ferrer RA. Lay awareness of the relationship between age and cancer risk. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2017;51(2):214–25. pmid:27752991
- 71. VanDyke SD, Shell MD. Health beliefs and breast cancer screening in rural Appalachia: an evaluation of the health belief model. The Journal of Rural Health 2017;33(4):350–60. pmid:27545099
- 72. Yüksel S, Uğraş GA, Cavdar I, Bozdoğan A, Gürdal SÖ, Akyolcu N, et al. A risk assessment comparison of breast cancer and factors affected to risk perception of women in turkey: A cross-sectional study. Iranian journal of public health. 2017;46(3):308. pmid:28435816
- 73. Basilio CD, Kwan VS, Towers MJ. Culture and risk assessments: Why Latino Americans perceive greater risk for diabetes. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 2016;22(1):104. pmid:25774897
- 74. Boo S, Froelicher ES, Yun J-H, Kim Y-W, Jung J-Y, Suh C-H. Perceived and actual risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Korea: a cross-sectional study. Medicine. 2016;95(40). pmid:27749595
- 75. Chen L-S, Kaphingst KA, Tseng T-S, Zhao S. How are lung cancer risk perceptions and cigarette smoking related?—testing an accuracy hypothesis. Translational cancer research 2016;5(Suppl 5):S964. pmid:29147644
- 76. Joiner KL, Sternberg RM, Kennedy CM, Fukuoka Y, Chen J-L, Janson SL. Perception of risk for developing diabetes among foreign-born Spanish-speaking US Latinos. The Diabetes Educator 2016;42(4):418–28. pmid:27150605
- 77. Osazuwa-Peters N, Tutlam NT. Knowledge and risk perception of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer among non-medical university students. Journal of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery 2016;45(1):1–7. pmid:26818939
- 78. Shah LL, Perkhounkova Y, Daack-Hirsch S. Evaluation of the perception of risk factors for type 2 diabetes instrument in an at-risk, nondiabetic population. Journal of nursing measurement 2016;24(2):83E–100E.
- 79. Vornanen M, Konttinen H, Kääriäinen H, Männistö S, Salomaa V, Perola M, et al. Family history and perceived risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and depression. Preventive medicine. 2016;90:177–83. pmid:27353304
- 80. Amuta AO, Barry AE, J McKyer EL. Risk perceptions for developing type 2 diabetes among overweight and obese adolescents with and without a family history of type 2 diabetes. American journal of health behavior 2015;39(6):786–93. pmid:26450546
- 81. Clark P, Lavielle P. Risk perception and knowledge about osteoporosis: Well informed but not aware? A cross-sectional study. Journal of community health 2015;40(2):245–50. pmid:25096762
- 82. Fukuoka Y, Choi J, Bender MS, Gonzalez P, Arai S. Family history and body mass index predict perceived risks of diabetes and heart attack among community-dwelling Caucasian, Filipino, Korean, and Latino Americans—DiLH Survey. Diabetes research and clinical practice 2015;109(1):157–63. pmid:25931282
- 83. Guess ND, Caengprasath N, Dornhorst A, Frost GS. Adherence to NICE guidelines on diabetes prevention in the UK: Effect on patient knowledge and perceived risk. Primary Care Diabetes. 2015;9(6):407–11. pmid:25979539
- 84. Hamilton JG, Lobel M. Psychosocial factors associated with risk perceptions for chronic diseases in younger and middle-aged women. Women & health 2015;55(8):921–42. pmid:26110993
- 85. Kye SY, Park EY, Oh K, Park K. Perceptions of cancer risk and cause of cancer risk in Korean adults. Cancer research and treatment: official journal of Korean Cancer Association 2015;47(2):158. pmid:25483748
- 86. Peipins LA, McCarty F, Hawkins NA, Rodriguez JL, Scholl LE, Leadbetter S. Cognitive and affective influences on perceived risk of ovarian cancer. Psycho‐Oncology. 2015;24(3):279–86. pmid:24916837
- 87. Piccinino L, Griffey S, Gallivan J, Lotenberg LD, Tuncer D. Recent trends in diabetes knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors: implications for national diabetes education. Health Education & Behavior 2015;42(5):687–96. pmid:25800032
- 88. Rice LJ, Brandt HM, Hardin JW, Ingram LA, Wilson SM. Exploring perceptions of cancer risk, neighborhood environmental risks, and health behaviors of Blacks. Journal of community health 2015;40(3):419–30. pmid:25315713
- 89. Temu TM, Kirui N, Wanjalla C, Ndungu AM, Kamano JH, Inui TS, et al. Cardiovascular health knowledge and preventive practices in people living with HIV in Kenya. BMC infectious diseases 2015;15(1):1–8. pmid:26466584
- 90. Godino JG, van Sluijs EM, Sutton S, Griffin SJ. Understanding perceived risk of type 2 diabetes in healthy middle-aged adults: A cross-sectional study of associations with modelled risk, clinical risk factors, and psychological factors. Diabetes research and clinical practice 2014;106(3):412–9. pmid:25467619
- 91. Lucas-Wright A, Bazargan M, Jones L, Vadgama JV, Vargas R, Sarkissyan M, et al. Correlates of perceived risk of developing cancer among African-Americans in South Los Angeles. Journal of community health 2014;39(1):173–80. pmid:24026303
- 92. McKinney SY, Palmer RC. The influence of gender on colorectal cancer knowledge, screening intention, perceived risk and worry among African Americans in South Florida. Journal of community health 2014;39(2):230–8. pmid:24375289
- 93. Zare Sakhvidi MJ, Mirzaei Aliabadi M, Sakhvidi FZ, Halvani G, Morowatisharifabad MA, Tezerjani HD, et al. Occupational cancer risk perception in Iranian workers. Archives of environmental & occupational health 2014;69(3):167–71. pmid:24325747
- 94. Chung C, Lee SJ. Estimated risks and optimistic self-perception of breast cancer risk in Korean women. Applied Nursing Research 2013;26(4):180–5. pmid:23895792
- 95. Mathur S, Levy M. Lung cancer risk perception and distress: difference by smoking status, and role of physical activity and race among US population. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health 2013;10(2).
- 96. Metcalfe KA, Quan ML, Eisen A, Cil T, Sun P, Narod SA. The impact of having a sister diagnosed with breast cancer on cancer‐related distress and breast cancer risk perception. Cancer 2013;119(9):1722–8. pmid:23400407
- 97. Orom H, Kiviniemi MT, Shavers VL, Ross L, Underwood W. Perceived risk for breast cancer and its relationship to mammography in Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. Journal of behavioral medicine 2013;36(5):466–76. pmid:22772713
- 98. Shiloh S, Wade CH, Roberts JS, Alford SH, Biesecker BB. Associations between risk perceptions and worry about common diseases: A between-and within-subjects examination. Psychology & Health 2013;28(4):434–49.
- 99. Sudenga SL, Rositch AF, Otieno WA, Smith JS. Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived risk of cervical cancer among Kenyan women: brief report. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer 2013;23(5). pmid:23694983
- 100. Wang H-H, Wu S-Y. HPV vaccine knowledge and perceived risk of cervical cancer among female college students in Taiwan. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2013;14(12):7371–4. pmid:24460305
- 101. Yang J, Zheng M, Chen S, Ou S, Zhang J, Wang N, et al. A survey of the perceived risk for stroke among community residents in western urban China. Plos one. 2013;8(9):e73578. pmid:24039989
- 102. Buster KJ, You Z, Fouad M, Elmets C. Skin cancer risk perceptions: a comparison across ethnicity, age, education, gender, and income. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2012;66(5):771–9. pmid:21875760
- 103. Darlow S, Goodman MS, Stafford JD, Lachance CR, Kaphingst KA. Weight perceptions and perceived risk for diabetes and heart disease among overweight and obese women, Suffolk County, New York, 2008. Preventing chronic disease 2012;9. pmid:22480610
- 104. Diaz VA, Mainous AG, Williamson D, Johnson SP, Knoll ME. Cardiovascular and diabetes risk perception in a Hispanic community sample. Ethnicity & disease 2012;22(1):5.
- 105. Dickerson JB, Smith ML, Sosa E, McKyer EL, Ory MG. Perceived risk of developing diabetes in early adulthood: beliefs about inherited and behavioral risk factors across the life course. Journal of health psychology 2012;17(2):285–96. pmid:21708872
- 106. Haber G, Ahmed NU, Pekovic V. Family history of cancer and its association with breast cancer risk perception and repeat mammography. American journal of public health 2012;102(12):2322–9. pmid:23078489
- 107. Hwang WJ, Hong O, Kim MJ. Factors associated with blue-collar workers’ risk perception of cardiovascular disease. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2012;42(7):1095–104. pmid:23377606
- 108. Kelly KM, Ferketich AK, Ruffin IV M T, Tatum C, Paskett ED. Perceived risk of cervical cancer in Appalachian women. American journal of health behavior 2012;36(6):849–59. pmid:23026042
- 109. White LJ, Chin-Quee AL, Berg CJ, Wise JC, Hapner ER. Differences in head and neck cancer risk perception between smoking and nonsmoking NASCAR attendees. Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery 2012;147(1):63–8. pmid:22368040
- 110. Maunsell E, Lauzier S, Brunet J, Pelletier S, Osborne RH, Campbell HS. Health‐related empowerment in cancer: Validity of scales from the Health Education Impact Questionnaire. Cancer. 2014;120(20):3228–36. pmid:24988944
- 111.
Institute for Public Health. National Health & Morbidity Survey (NHMS) 2017.2020. https://iku.moh.gov.my/nhms-2017.
- 112. Eskildsen NB, Joergensen CR, Thomsen TG, Ross L, Dietz SM, Groenvold M, et al. Patient empowerment: A systematic review of questionnaires measuring empowerment in cancer patients. Acta Oncologica 2017;56(2):156–65. pmid:28077053
- 113. Olivari MG, Tagliabue S, Confalonieri E. Parenting style and dimensions questionnaire: A review of reliability and validity. Marriage & Family Review 2013;49(6):465–90.
- 114. Chang L, Krosnick JA. Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered computerized QuestionnairesAn experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 2010;74(1):154–67.
- 115. Syed MA, Alnuaimi AS, Zainel AJ, AA H. Prevalence of non-communicable diseases by age, gender and nationality in publicly funded primary care settings in Qatar. BMJ nutrition, prevention & health 2019;2(1):20. pmid:33235953
- 116. Tiller D, Herzog B, Kluttig A, Haerting J. Health literacy in an urban elderly East-German population–results from the population-based CARLA study. BMC public health. 2015;15(1):1–9.
- 117. Rikard R, Thompson MS, McKinney J, Beauchamp A. Examining health literacy disparities in the United States: a third look at the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). BMC Public Health 2016;16(1):1–11.
- 118. Dutta S, Begum R, Mazumder D, Mandal SS, Mondal R, Biswas J, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in women without cervical cancer: a population-based study in Eastern India. International journal of gynecological pathology 2012;31(2):178–83. pmid:22317877
- 119. De Bie C, Ballet V, Hendriks N, Coenen S, Weyts E, Van Assche G, et al. Smoking behaviour and knowledge of the health effects of smoking in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2015;42(11–12):1294–302. pmid:26435040
- 120. Milcarz M, Polanska K, Bak-Romaniszyn L, Kaleta D. Tobacco health risk awareness among socially disadvantaged people—A crucial tool for smoking cessation. International journal of environmental research and public health 2018;15(10):2244. pmid:30322112
- 121. Raghu S, Rao MV, Pulivarthhi SK, Srikanth JK. Awareness of harmful effects of smoking among smokers. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences 2015;4(80):13937–43.
- 122. Bharath C, Saravanan N, Venkatalakshmi S. Assessment of knowledge related to diabetes mellitus among patients attending a dental college in Salem city-A cross sectional study. Brazilian Dental Science 2017;20(3):93–100.
- 123. Premkumar D. Awareness of diabetes mellitus and its complications among students in a Malaysian university. Journal of Medicine, Radiology, Pathology and Surgery 2018;5(4):1.
- 124. Mørch LS, Skovlund CW, Hannaford PC, Iversen L, Fielding S, Lidegaard Ø. Contemporary hormonal contraception and the risk of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2017;377(23):2228–39. pmid:29211679
- 125. Choi YJ, Kim N. Gastric cancer and family history. The Korean journal of internal medicine 2016;31(6):1042. pmid:27809451
- 126. Kim C, McEwen LN, Piette JD, Goewey J, Ferrara A, Walker EA. Risk perception for diabetes among women with histories of gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes care. 2007;30(9):2281–6. pmid:17575087