Suppr超能文献

测试一种最佳实践风险结果格式,以传达遗传风险。

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

机构信息

Lineagen, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, USA.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2021 May;104(5):936-943. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.021. Epub 2020 Oct 19.

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.

摘要

目的

研究采用风险沟通“最佳实践”的遗传报告格式对风险认知的影响,部分是为了减少风险高估。

方法

来自科里尔个性化医学协作组织(CPMC)的成年人(N=470)被随机分为 2×2 实验设计,通过标准的 CPMC 报告(N=232)或受最佳实践信息丰富的报告(N=238)接收假设的白血病“个性化”遗传风险结果(相对风险=1.5 或 2.5)。一次性在线调查评估了数量和风险认知,包括“风险感”和数值估计。

结果

无论数量如何,接受丰富报告的参与者对其终生风险估计(LRE)的高估较少(优势比=0.19,p<.001),并且在三个指标中的两个上的风险感较低(p<.001)。具有较高数量分数的参与者对 LRE 的高估较少(OR=0.66,p<.001),并且在三个指标中的两个上的风险感较低(p≤.01);数量和报告格式之间的相互作用不显著。

结论

无论数量水平如何,丰富的报告都产生了更准确的 LRE 和较低的风险认知,这表明无论数量能力如何,丰富的格式对个人都是有帮助的。

实践意义

风险报告中的最佳实践元素可能有助于个人形成更准确的风险认知。

相似文献

1
Testing a best practices risk result format to communicate genetic risks.
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 May;104(5):936-943. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.021. Epub 2020 Oct 19.
2
The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices.
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):448-55. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023. Epub 2008 Aug 27.
3
Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions.
Med Decis Making. 2011 May-Jun;31(3):432-6. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10391672. Epub 2010 Dec 29.
4
Communicating Relative Risk Changes with Baseline Risk: Presentation Format and Numeracy Matter.
Med Decis Making. 2014 Jul;34(5):615-26. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14526305. Epub 2014 May 6.
5
6
Health Professionals Prefer to Communicate Risk-Related Numerical Information Using "1-in-X" Ratios.
Med Decis Making. 2018 Apr;38(3):366-376. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17734203. Epub 2017 Oct 25.
7
Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy.
Med Decis Making. 2009 Jul-Aug;29(4):483-90. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09333122. Epub 2009 Jun 12.
8
Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates.
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Apr;83(1):92-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.027.
9
Impact of Previous Genetic Counseling and Objective Numeracy on Accurate Interpretation of a Pharmacogenetics Test Report.
Public Health Genomics. 2021;24(1-2):26-32. doi: 10.1159/000512476. Epub 2021 Jan 14.
10
The impact of numeracy on verbatim knowledge of the longitudinal risk for prostate cancer recurrence following radiation therapy.
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):27-36. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14551639. Epub 2014 Oct 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Development and evaluation of patient-centred polygenic risk score reports for glaucoma screening.
BMC Med Genomics. 2025 Jan 30;18(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12920-024-02079-z.
2
Evaluating an approach for communicating integrated risk scores for melanoma.
Eur J Hum Genet. 2025 Apr;33(4):523-530. doi: 10.1038/s41431-024-01750-4. Epub 2024 Nov 29.
3
Re-envisioning community genetics: community empowerment in preventive genomics.
J Community Genet. 2023 Oct;14(5):459-469. doi: 10.1007/s12687-023-00638-y. Epub 2023 Feb 11.
4
Investigating the presentation of uncertainty in an icon array: A randomized trial.
PEC Innov. 2022 Dec;1:None. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2021.100003.
5
Design and user experience testing of a polygenic score report: a qualitative study of prospective users.
BMC Med Genomics. 2021 Oct 1;14(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s12920-021-01056-0.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验