Literature DB >> 11015699

Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women.

T M Marteau1, G Saidi, S Goodburn, J Lawton, S Michie, M Bobrow.   

Abstract

The Objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that presenting risk information using numbers rather than words is a more effective way of communicating the residual risk inherent in a screen negative test result. We used a randomised controlled trial in a large UK teaching hospital. Two hundred and twenty pregnant women who received negative results on serum screening for Down syndrome participated. Presentation of screen negative test results were given either as a numerical probability (e.g. you have a 1:650 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome) or as a verbal probability (your chance of having a baby with Down syndrome is low). In both interventions the verbal anchor 'it is unlikely that your baby has Down syndrome' was used. Our aims were to measure the understanding of the residual risk in a screen negative result, and anxiety. Immediately after receipt of the results, 97% of those receiving their results in the form of a numerical probability and 91% of those receiving their results in the form of a verbal probability correctly understood that their baby probably did not have Down syndrome (95% CI for difference: 0% to 12%; p=0.04). All those who were incorrect believed that their baby definitely did not have Down syndrome. Subgroup analysis showed that this effect was confined to those with lower levels of education (i.e. those without a university degree), amongst whom understanding was poorer. There was no difference between intervention groups in understanding the results at four months. There were no differences between intervention groups in the levels of anxiety at one week or four months after receiving their results. In conclusion, communicating residual risks using numbers rather than words has a small beneficial effect of increasing awareness of residual risks without raising anxiety. Further work is needed to estimate the size of this effect in less well-informed and less highly educated populations. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11015699     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0223(200009)20:9<714::aid-pd906>3.0.co;2-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prenat Diagn        ISSN: 0197-3851            Impact factor:   3.050


  12 in total

Review 1.  How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn; Clara L Gaff; Angus J Clarke; Rachel Iredale; Chris Shaw; Joanna Dundon; Hazel Thornton; Adrian Edwards
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Women's understanding of a "normal smear test result": experimental questionnaire based study.

Authors:  T M Marteau; V Senior; P Sasieni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-03

3.  Genetic testing likelihood: the impact of abortion views and quality of life information on women's decisions.

Authors:  Jessica L Wilson; Gail M Ferguson; Judith M Thorn
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-11-06       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.

Authors:  Yin Bun Cheung; Hwee Lin Wee; Julian Thumboo; Cynthia Goh; Ricardo Pietrobon; Han Chong Toh; Yu Fen Yong; Say Beng Tan
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 2.796

5.  Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions.

Authors:  Sean Young; Daniel M Oppenheimer
Journal:  Psychol Health Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.423

6.  Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman's responses?

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Kristie Keeton; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-09-19       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Information management in families who have a child with a genetic condition.

Authors:  Agatha M Gallo; Kathleen A Knafl; Denise B Angst
Journal:  J Pediatr Nurs       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.145

8.  The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: a multicenter controlled trial.

Authors:  Lidewij Henneman; Jan C Oosterwijk; Christi J van Asperen; Fred H Menko; Caroline F Ockhuysen-Vermey; Piet J Kostense; Liesbeth Claassen; Daniëlle Rm Timmermans
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments.

Authors:  Teresa A Myers; Edward Maibach; Ellen Peters; Anthony Leiserowitz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The impact of individualised cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimates and lifestyle advice on physical activity in individuals at high risk of CVD: a pilot 2 x 2 factorial understanding risk trial.

Authors:  Hermione C Price; Lynne Tucker; Simon J Griffin; Rury R Holman
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diabetol       Date:  2008-07-17       Impact factor: 9.951

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.