1. Kannel WB, McGee D, Gordon T. A general cardiovascular risk profile: the Framingham Study. Am J Cardiol. 1976;38:46–51. [PubMed] 2. Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation. 1998;97:1837–47. [PubMed] 3. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–86. [PubMed] 5. Freedman AN, Seminara D, Gail MH, et al. Cancer risk prediction models: a workshop on development, evaluation, and application. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:715–23. [PubMed] 6. Colditz GA, Atwood KA, Emmons K, et al. Harvard report on cancer prevention volume 4: Harvard Cancer Risk Index. Risk Index Working Group, Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention. Cancer Causes Control. 2000;11:477–88. [PubMed] 7. Emmons KM, Koch-Weser S, Atwood K, Conboy L, Rudd R, Colditz G. A qualitative evaluation of the Harvard Cancer Risk Index. J Health Commun. 1999;4:181–93. [PubMed] 8. Brindle P, Beswick A, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. Heart. 2006;92:1752–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 9. Eddy DM, Schlessinger L. Archimedes: a trial-validated model of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:3093–101. [PubMed] 10. D'Agostino RB, Russell MW, Huse DM, et al. Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: new results from the Framingham study. Am Heart J. 2000;139(pt 1):272–81. [PubMed] 11. Grundy SM, Balady GJ, Criqui MH, et al. Primary prevention of coronary heart disease: guidance from Framingham: a statement for healthcare professionals from the AHA Task Force on Risk Reduction. American Heart Association. Circulation. 1998;97:1876–87. [PubMed] 12. Euhus DM. Understanding mathematical models for breast cancer risk assessment and counseling. Breast J. 2001;7:224–32. [PubMed] 13. Beswick A, Brindle P. Risk scoring in the assessment of cardiovascular risk. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2006;17:375–86. [PubMed] 14. Claus EB. Risk models used to counsel women for breast and ovarian cancer: a guide for clinicians. Fam Cancer. 2001;1:197–206. [PubMed] 15. Gail MH, Costantino JP. Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:334–5. [PubMed] 16. Briss P, Rimer B, Reilley B, et al. Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:67–80. [PubMed] 17. Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, Chan EC, Woolf SH. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer. 2004;101(suppl 5):1214–28. [PubMed] 18. Whitney SN. A new model of medical decisions: exploring the limits of shared decision making. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:275–80. [PubMed] 19. Mazur DJ. Information disclosure and beyond: how do patients understand and use the information they report they want? Med Decis Making. 2000;20:132–4. [PubMed] 20. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM, et al. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1–156. [PubMed] 21. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92. [PubMed] 22. Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:54–9. [PubMed] 23. Braitman LE, Davidoff F. Predicting clinical states in individual patients. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:406–12. [PubMed] 24. Politi MC, Han PK, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:681–95. [PubMed]
25. Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quart J Econ. 1961;75:643–69.
26. Camerer C, Weber M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertainty. 1992;5:325–70.
27. Frisch D, Baron J. Ambiguity and rationality. J Behav Decis Making. 1988;1:149–57.
28. Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM. Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychol Rev. 1985;92:433–61.
29. Wallsten TS. The costs and benefits of vague information. In: Hogarth RM, editor. Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 1990. pp. 28–43.
30. Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Communication of ambiguous risk information. Theory Decis. 1991;31:159–73.
31. Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Smoking status and public responses to ambiguous scientific risk evidence. South Econ J. 1999;66:250–70.
32. Kuhn KM, Budescu DV. The relative importance of probabilities, outcomes, and vagueness in hazard risk decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;68:301–17.
33. Kuhn KM. Communicating uncertainty: framing effects on responses to vague probabilities. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1997;71:55–83.
34. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:459–67. [PubMed] 35. Johnson BB, Slovic P. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Anal. 1995;15:485–94. [PubMed] 36. Meszaros JR, Asch DA, Baron J, Hershey JC, Kunreuther H, Schwartz-Buzaglo J. Cognitive processes and the decisions of some parents to forego pertussis vaccination for their children. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:697–703. [PubMed]
37. Ritov I, Baron J. Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J Behav Decis Making. 1990;3:263–77.
38. Curley SP, Eraker SA, Yates JF. An investigation of patients’ reactions to therapeutic uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:501–11.
39. Han PK, Moser RP, Klein WM. Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry. J Health Commun. 2006;11(suppl 1):51–69. [PubMed] 40. Han PK, Moser RP, Klein WM. Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviours in a US population survey. Health Expect. 2007;10:321–36. [PubMed] 41. Han PKJ, Kobrin SC, Klein WMP, Davis WW, Stefanek ME, Taplin SH. Perceived ambiguity about screening mammography recommendations: association with future mammography uptake and perceptions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:458–66. [PubMed] 42. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti V. The evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:391–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 43. Jepson RG, Forbes CA, Sowden AJ, Lewis RA. Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review. Health Expect. 2001;4:116–26. [PubMed] 44. Wolf AM, Nasser JF, Schorling JB. The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1333–6. [PubMed] 45. Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10:895–98. [PubMed]
46. Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM. Decision making under ambiguity. J Business. 1986;59:S225–50.
47. Curley SP, Yates JF, Abrams RA. Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes. 1986;38:230–56.
48. Heath C, Tversky A. Preference and belief: ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty. 1991;4:5–28.
49. Keren G, Gerritsen LEM. On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychologica. 1999;103:149–72.
50. Yates JF, Zukowski LG. Characterization of ambiguity in decision making. Behav Sci. 1976;21:19–25.
51. Rode C, Cosmides L, Hell W, Tooby J. When and why do people avoid unknown probabilities in decisions under uncertainty? Testing some predictions from optimal foraging theory. Cognition. 1999;72:269–304. [PubMed] 52. Sofaer S. Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them? Health Serv Res. 1999;34(pt 2):1101–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 53. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311:299–302. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
54. Krueger R, Casey M. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2000.
55. Morgan D. Focus Groups in Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1998.
56. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk, Soc. 2000;2:159–72.
57. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:663–71. [PubMed] 58. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–72. [PubMed] 59. Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Hesse BW, et al. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination. J Health Commun. 2004;9:443–60. discussion 481–4. [PubMed] 60. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Patients and medical statistics: interest, confidence, and ability. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:996–1000. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 61. Freedman AN, Slattery ML, Ballard-Barbash R, Willis G, Cann BJ, Pee D, Gail MH, Pfeiffer RM. A Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction Tool for White Men and Women Without Known Susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. In press. Prepublished 29 December 2008, 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.4797. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
63. Ryan GW, Bernard HR. Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2003. pp. 259–309.
64. Strauss AL, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1998.
65. Addison RB. A grounded hermeneutic editing approach. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1999. pp. 145–62.
66. Lipkus IM, Biradavolu M, Fenn K, Keller P, Rimer BK. Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences. Health Commun. 2001;13:205–26. [PubMed] 67. McCaul KD, Canavello AB, Mathwig JL, Klein WMP. Risk communication and worry about breast cancer. Psychol Health Med. 2003;8:379–89. [PubMed]
68. Baron J. Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2000.
69. Cabantous L. Ambiguity aversion in the field of insurance: insurers’ attitude to imprecise and conflicting probability estimates. Theory Decis. 2007;62:219–40.
70. Smithson M. Conflict aversion: preference for ambiguity vs conflict in sources and evidence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999;79:179–98. [PubMed]
71. Viscusi WK. Alarmist decisions with divergent risk information. Econ J. 1997;107:1657–70.
72. Highhouse S. A verbal protocol analysis of choice under ambiguity. J Econ Psychol. 1994;15:621–35.
73. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. “If I'm better than average, then I'm ok?” Comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69:140–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 74. Klein WM. Objective standards are not enough: affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;72:763–74. [PubMed]
75. Kuhn KM. Message format and audience values: interactive effects of uncertainty information and environmental attitudes on perceived risk. J Environ Psychol. 2000;20:41–51.
76. Winkler RL. Ambiguity, probability, preference, and decision analysis. J Risk Uncertainty. 1991;4:285–97.
77. Bier VM, Connell BL. Ambiguity seeking in multi-attribute decisions: effects of optimism and message framing. J Behav Decis Making. 1994;7:169–82.
78. Highhouse S, Hause EL. Missing information in selection: an application of the Einhorn-Hogarth ambiguity model. J Appl Psychol. 1995;80:86–93.
79. Nau RF. Extensions of the subjective expected utility model. In: Edwards W, Miles RFJ, von Winterfeldt D, editors. Advances in Decision Analysis: From Foundations to Applications. Cambridge University; New York: 2007. pp. 253–78.
80. Klein WM, Stefanek ME. Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:147–67. [PubMed]
81. Curley SP, Yates JF. The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes. 1985;36:273–87.
82. Schirillo J, Stone E. The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Anal. 2005;25:555–66. [PubMed]
83. Stone E, Yates JF, Parker AM. Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1997;3:243–56.
84. Griffin D, Tversky A. The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cogn Psychol. 1992;24:411–35.
85. Gillies D. Philosophical Theories of Probability. Routledge; London: 2000.
86. Hacking I. An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2001.
87. Howard RA. Uncertainty about probability: a decision analysis perspective. Risk Anal. 1988;8:91–8.
88. Howard RA. The foundations of decision analysis revisited. In: Edwards W, Miles RFJ, Von Winterfeldt D, editors. Advances in Decision Analysis: From Foundations to Applications. Cambridge University Press; New York: 2007. pp. 32–56.
89. Raiffa H. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms: comment. Quart J Econ. 1961;75:690–4.