Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden.
Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden.
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Mar;101(3):422-427. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.009. Epub 2017 Sep 18.
It is well known that research participants want to receive genetic risk information that is about high risks, serious diseases and potential preventive measures. The aim of this study was to explore, by qualitative means, something less well known: how do healthy research participants themselves make sense of genetic risk information?
A phenomenographic approach was chosen to explore research participants' understanding and assessment of genetic risk. We conducted four focus-group (N=16) interviews with participants in a research programme designed to identify biomarkers for cardiopulmonary disease.
Among the research participants, we found four ways of understanding genetic risk: as a binary concept, as an explanation, as revealing who I am (knowledge of oneself) and as affecting life ahead.
Research participants tend to understand genetic risk as a binary concept. This does not necessarily imply a misunderstanding of, or an irrational approach to, genetic risk. Rather, it may have a heuristic function in decision-making.
Risk communication may be enhanced by tailoring the communication to the participants' own lay conceptions. For example, researchers and counselors should address risk in binary terms, maybe looking out for how individual participants search for threshold figures.
众所周知,研究参与者希望获得有关高风险、严重疾病和潜在预防措施的遗传风险信息。本研究的目的是通过定性方法探讨一个不太为人所知的问题:健康的研究参与者如何理解遗传风险信息?
采用现象学方法探讨研究参与者对遗传风险的理解和评估。我们对参与旨在识别心肺疾病生物标志物的研究计划的参与者进行了四次焦点小组(N=16)访谈。
在研究参与者中,我们发现了四种理解遗传风险的方式:作为二元概念、作为解释、揭示自我(自我知识)和影响未来生活。
研究参与者倾向于将遗传风险理解为二元概念。这并不一定意味着对遗传风险的误解或不合理的方法。相反,它在决策中可能具有启发式功能。
通过使沟通适应参与者自己的通俗概念,可以增强风险沟通。例如,研究人员和顾问应该用二元术语来描述风险,也许要注意个别参与者寻找阈值的方式。