Risk perception of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review on its assessment and associated factors

• Published in: PloS one 2023-06, Vol.18 (6), p.e0286518
• Main Authors: Jane Ling, Miaw Yn, Ahmad, Norfazilah, Aizuddin, Azimatun Noor
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis; Bias; Breast cancer; Cervical cancer; Chronic diseases; Colorectal cancer; Communicable diseases; Content analysis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Disease; Evaluation; Examinations; Health risks; Humans; Language; Literature reviews; Medicine and Health Sciences; Noncommunicable Diseases; Perception; Perceptions; Population; Prevention; Questionnaires; Reviews; Risk assessment; Risk factors; Risk perception; Statistical analysis; Systematic review; Validity
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286518

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. 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. 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. 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. Further development and testing of available questionnaire is warranted to ensure their robustness and validity in measuring risk perception of NCDs. All the identified factors deserve further exploration in longitudinal and experimental studies.