OBJECTIVE: We tested whether adding interpretive labels (eg, "negative test") to prenatal genetic screening test results changes perceived risk and preferences for amniocentesis. STUDY DESIGN:Women (N = 1688) completed a hypothetical pregnancy scenario on the Internet. We randomly assigned participants into 2 groups: high risk of fetal chromosomal problems (12.5/1000) or low risk (2/1000). After prenatal screening, estimated risk was identical (5/1000) for all participants, but results were provided either alone or with interpretive labels. RESULTS: When receiving test results without labels, all participants react similarly. With labels, the participants who received "positive" or "abnormal" results reported a higher perceived risk (P < .001), greater worry (P < .001), and greater interest in amniocentesis (57% vs 37%; P < .001) than did the participants who received "negative" or "normal" results. CONCLUSION: Interpretive labels for test results can induce larger changes to a woman's risk perception and behavioral intention than can numeric results alone, which create decision momentum. This finding has broad clinical implications for patient-provider communication.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We tested whether adding interpretive labels (eg, "negative test") to prenatal genetic screening test results changes perceived risk and preferences for amniocentesis. STUDY DESIGN:Women (N = 1688) completed a hypothetical pregnancy scenario on the Internet. We randomly assigned participants into 2 groups: high risk of fetal chromosomal problems (12.5/1000) or low risk (2/1000). After prenatal screening, estimated risk was identical (5/1000) for all participants, but results were provided either alone or with interpretive labels. RESULTS: When receiving test results without labels, all participants react similarly. With labels, the participants who received "positive" or "abnormal" results reported a higher perceived risk (P < .001), greater worry (P < .001), and greater interest in amniocentesis (57% vs 37%; P < .001) than did the participants who received "negative" or "normal" results. CONCLUSION: Interpretive labels for test results can induce larger changes to a woman's risk perception and behavioral intention than can numeric results alone, which create decision momentum. This finding has broad clinical implications for patient-provider communication.
Authors: Miriam Kuppermann; Lee A Learman; Elena Gates; Steven E Gregorich; Robert F Nease; James Lewis; A Eugene Washington Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kypros H Nicolaides; Frank A Chervenak; Laurence B McCullough; Kyriaki Avgidou; Aris Papageorghiou Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Matthijs van den Berg; Danielle R M Timmermans; Leo P ten Kate; John M G van Vugt; Gerrit van der Wal Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2005-10-20
Authors: Jennifer G McIntosh; Jesse Minshall; Sibel Saya; Adrian Bickerstaffe; Nadira Hewabandu; Ashleigh Qama; Jon D Emery Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Samuel G Smith; Michael S Wolf; Austin Obichere; Rosalind Raine; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-08-20
Authors: Lyndal J Trevena; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Adrian Edwards; Wolfgang Gaissmaier; Mirta Galesic; Paul K J Han; John King; Margaret L Lawson; Suzanne K Linder; Isaac Lipkus; Elissa Ozanne; Ellen Peters; Danielle Timmermans; Steven Woloshin Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796