Background: Risk-perception emerges when the brain interprets and memorizes certain stimuli as dangerous for one’s body and life. Even in objectively safe situations people perceive risks and...Show moreBackground: Risk-perception emerges when the brain interprets and memorizes certain stimuli as dangerous for one’s body and life. Even in objectively safe situations people perceive risks and dangers. When it comes to medicine, risk-perception can withhold people from staying true to their medical treatment which is why it is important to pay attention to this phenomenon. The current studies about the perceived risks of medicine are mainly focused on male subjects which is why this study examined whether the perceived risk of medication differs among sexes. Methods: Literature research gave reason to hypothesize that females perceive higher risk of medication compared to males. To investigate this, this study made use of an online survey containing two standardized risk-perception scales. The survey was built around a fictional medication named Aratrine of which the side-effects were described, after which seven questions/statements were presented to the respondents aiming to measure their perceived risk of Aratrine. The generated convenience sample eventually included 221 respondents (178 females 43 males). The data collected by the survey was integrated in a sum score which represented the overall perceived risk of Aratrine. The means of the female- and male sum scores were analyzed and compared with use of an independent sample t-test. Results & Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the overall sum risk-perception score did not differ among different sexes (t (2,219) = -.597, p = 0.551). This seems to imply that there is no difference in perceived risk of medication side-effect between males and females, which does not correspond with the expectation that raised from the literature review. This can be explained due to the validity and sample problems that occurred in this study. The post hoc analysis of the individual scale-items did show a significant difference among sexes for two items regarding the estimated risk of Aratrine (p<0.01) and the severity of potential bad consequences (p<0.01).Show less
Research master thesis | Psychology (research) (MSc)
closed access
Background: To alleviate side-effect burden in advanced breast cancer, it is necessary to identify at-risk personality types and effective interventions. Previous research indicates that patients’...Show moreBackground: To alleviate side-effect burden in advanced breast cancer, it is necessary to identify at-risk personality types and effective interventions. Previous research indicates that patients’ pessimism and trait anxiety may be risk factors for experiencing side-effects. To reduce their side-effect burden, optimizing patients’ side-effect expectations is suggested as a novel strategy. Doctor-patient communication strategies, such as expressing empathy (i.e. reassurance of nonabandonment) and explaining psychological mechanisms behind side-effects (i.e. a nocebo explanation), are most promising for optimizing patients’ expectations. In this experimental video-vignette study, we aimed to determine (1) whether clinician-expressed empathy and/or a nocebo explanation is effective in reducing expected side-effect burden, (2) whether generalized pessimism and trait anxiety relate to expected side-effect burden, and (3) whether there is an interaction between the effectiveness of these interventions and these personality characteristics. Methods: Using a two-by-two experimental video-vignette design, 159 cancer patients/survivors and healthy women watched one out of four videos with a nocebo explanation (present/absent) and empathy manipulation (present/absent). The effect of the interventions, the personality characteristics, and the interaction between these two were assessed using regression analyses. Differences between specific (e.g. hair loss) and nonspecific side-effects (e.g. fatigue) were investigated. Results: Clinician-expressed empathy, but not the nocebo explanation (p>.025), was successful in reducing expected side-effect occurrence (p=.008) and intensity (p=.003). Next, pessimistic patients expected side-effects to be more intense (p=.010), which was more profound in predicting the intensity of specific (p=.004), rather than nonspecific side-effects (p=.038). Moreover, results indicate an adverse effect of the nocebo explanation for pessimistic patients, as they expected nonspecific side-effects to be more intense after receiving this intervention (p=.014). Anxious patients expected a higher occurrence of nonspecific side-effects (p=.024), but not of specific side-effects (p=.435). No moderating role was found regarding patients’ anxiety and the effectiveness of the interventions. Conclusions: Short expressions of empathy by an oncologist can improve side-effect expectations. Generalized pessimism may cause patients to be vulnerable to expecting more intense side-effects, and to experiencing adverse effects from the nocebo explanation. Clinical follow-up studies need to investigate whether these results hold in clinical practice, and identify interventions for pessimistic cancer patients.Show less
