Occasions, Locations, and Reasons for Consuming Sugar-Sweetened Beverages among U.S. Adults.

Frequent intake of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is associated with adverse health outcomes such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Little is known about when, where, and why U.S. adults consume SSBs. This study, using data from an online survey distributed in 2021, examined the occasions, locations, and reasons for consuming SSBs and the characteristics of the adults who consume them. Nearly 7 of 10 adults reported consuming a SSB (1-6 times) in the past 7 days, and more than a third (38%) reported doing so once or more per day (on average). For comparative purposes, the sample was limited to adults who reported consuming SSBs within the last 7 days. Mealtimes were reported as the most frequent occasion for the intake of SSBs (43%) and SSBs were most often consumed at home (70%). Over half of respondents (56%) reported they consume SSBs because they enjoy the taste. Younger adults (18-34 years old) were more likely to consume SSBs in social settings than older adults (≥50 years old). Hispanic adults were less likely to consume SSBs at the beginning of the day compared to non-Hispanic White adults. Younger (18-34 years old) and middle-aged (35-49 years old) adults were more likely to consume SSBs in restaurants, at work, and in cars than older adults (≥50 years old). Women were less likely to consume SSBs at work than men. Hispanic adults were less likely to consume SSBs in cars than non-Hispanic White adults, while those earning USD 50,000-

Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates.

OBJECTIVE: To explore laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty associated with individualized cancer risk estimates and to identify reasons for individual differences in these responses. DESIGN: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups. Participants were informed about a new colorectal cancer risk prediction model, and presented with hypothetical individualized risk estimates using presentation formats varying in expressed uncertainty (range v. point estimate). Semistructured interviews explored participants' responses to this information. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Eight focus groups were conducted with 48 adults aged 50 to 74 residing in 2 major US metropolitan areas, Chicago, IL and Washington, DC. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants with a high school or greater education, some familiarity with information technology, and no personal or immediate family history of cancer. RESULTS: Participants identified several sources of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates, including missing data, limitations in accuracy and source credibility, and conflicting information. In comparing presentation formats, most participants reported greater worry and perceived risk with the range than with the point estimate, consistent with the phenomenon of "ambiguity aversion.'' However, others reported the opposite effect or else indifference between formats. Reasons suggested by participants' responses included individual differences in optimism and motivations to reduce feelings of vulnerability and personal lack of control. Perceptions of source credibility and risk mutability emerged as potential mediating factors. CONCLUSIONS: Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates differ, and include both heightened and diminished risk perceptions. These differences may be attributable to personality, cognitive, and motivational factors.

Conceptual problems in laypersons' understanding of individualized cancer risk: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore laypersons' understanding of individualized cancer risk estimates, and to identify conceptual problems that may limit this understanding. BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models are increasingly used to provide people with information about their individual risk of cancer and other diseases. However, laypersons may have difficulty understanding individualized risk information, because of conceptual as well as computational problems. DESIGN: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups. Semi-structured interviews explored participants' understandings of the concept of risk, and their interpretations of a hypothetical individualized colorectal cancer risk estimate. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eight focus groups were conducted with 48 adults aged 50-74 years residing in two major US metropolitan areas. Participants had high school or greater education, some familiarity with information technology, and no personal or family history of cancer. RESULTS: Several important conceptual problems were identified. Most participants thought of risk not as a neutral statistical concept, but as signifying danger and emotional threat, and viewed cancer risk in terms of concrete risk factors rather than mathematical probabilities. Participants had difficulty acknowledging uncertainty implicit to the concept of risk, and judging the numerical significance of individualized risk estimates. The most challenging conceptual problems related to conflict between subjective and objective understandings of risk, and difficulties translating aggregate-level objective risk estimates to the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: Several conceptual problems limit laypersons' understanding of individualized cancer risk information. These problems have implications for future research on health numeracy, and for the application of risk prediction models in clinical and public health settings.