Literature DB >> 33131927

Testing a best practices risk result format to communicate genetic risks.

Kyle W Davis1, Debra L Roter2, Tara Schmidlen3, Laura B Scheinfeldt4, William M P Klein5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a genetic report format using risk communication "best-practices" on risk perceptions, in part to reduce risk overestimates.
METHODS: Adults (N = 470) from the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (CPMC) were randomized to a 2 × 2 experimental design to receive a hypothetical "personalized" genetic risk result for leukemia (relative risk = 1.5 or 2.5) through either the standard CPMC report (N = 232) or an enriched report informed by best practices (N = 238). A one-time, online survey assessed numeracy and risk perceptions including "feelings of risk" and a numerical estimate.
RESULTS: Regardless of numeracy, participants who received the enriched report had fewer overestimates of their lifetime risk estimate (LRE; odds ratio = 0.19, p < .001) and lower feelings of risk on two of three measures (p < .001). Participants with higher numeracy scores had fewer overestimates of LRE (OR = 0.66, p < .001) and lower feelings of risk on two out of three measures (p ≤ .01); the interaction between numeracy and report format was non-significant.
CONCLUSION: The enriched report produced more accurate LRE and lower risk perceptions regardless of numeracy level, suggesting the enriched format was helpful to individuals irrespective of numeracy ability. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Best practice elements in risk reports may help individuals form more accurate risk perceptions.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genomic risk; Health risk assessment; Numeracy; Personalized medicine; Risk communication; Risk perception

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33131927      PMCID: PMC8053732          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  1 in total

Review 1.  Design and user experience testing of a polygenic score report: a qualitative study of prospective users.

Authors:  Deanna G Brockman; Lia Petronio; Jacqueline S Dron; Bum Chul Kwon; Trish Vosburg; Lisa Nip; Andrew Tang; Mary O'Reilly; Niall Lennon; Bang Wong; Kenney Ng; Katherine H Huang; Akl C Fahed; Amit V Khera
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.622

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.