Suchergebnisse

There is evidence that the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) and smoking contribute independently to risk of circulatory disease. There is mixed evidence that the combined risk may be greater than the sum of these factors operating in isolation. Little is known about how the general population views the risks from OCP use, singly and in combination with smoking. Previous attempts at assessing whether the public views risks as operating synergistically have generally found evidence for subadditive models, where the combined risk is less than the sum of factors operating in isolation. However, concerns have been expressed over the validity of the measures of risk perception used. Therefore, this study used three distinct methods of measurement to assess the extent to which 241 undergraduate students perceive the risks of smoking and the OCP, separately and combined, for circulatory disease. For all three methods, respondents read each of four vignettes describing information about a woman's risk factors (with high and low levels of both OCP and smoking), and then estimated risk of circulatory disease using one of the three risk measures. The three measures produced similar ratings. Consistent with the epidemiological evidence, information about smoking had more impact on estimates of overall risk than did information about the OCP. For all three measures, responses were consistent with an additive model of risk from smoking and the OCP. This convergence of results from different methods suggests that all three methods of measurement employed, which all had a large number of response options, may be valid.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the expert input provided into the scope of these recommendations from participants in an international Delphi procedure. The following people took part in the Delphi procedure and participants had a range of views. Participation in the Delphi procedure does not necessarily mean agreement with the recommendations FUNDING The MERIT study was funded by the MRC/NIHR Methodology Research Programme (reference MC_PC_17229); funders have had no role in the design of the study or the writing of this manuscript. The work of RD and AL (members of MERIT Collaborative Group) is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13) and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF