Trial reportJournal of health communication2013
Testing different communication formats on responses to imagined risk of having versus missing the GSTM1 gene.
Trial report in Journal of health communication, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of delivery models on understanding genomic risk for type 2 diabetes.Public health genomics · 2014Trial
- Changes in circRNA expression profiles related to the antagonistic effects of Escherichia coli F17 in lamb spleens.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- "I don't believe it." Acceptance and skepticism of genetic health information among African-American and White smokers.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2017Article
- Patients' ratings of genetic conditions validate a taxonomy to simplify decisions about preconception carrier screening via genome sequencing.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2016Article
- "I don't know" my cancer risk: exploring deficits in cancer knowledge and information-seeking skills to explain an often-overlooked participant response.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2015Article
- Young smokers' interpretations of the estimated lung cancer risk associated with a common genetic variant of low penetrance.Public health genomics · 2014Article
- How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
- Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.MDM policy & practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic markers of lung cancer susceptibility, such as the common variant of the glutathione S-transferase Mu 1 gene (GSTM1-null), confer small probabilities of disease risk. The authors explored the influence of different approaches to communicating the small variations in risk associated with this biomarker. College smokers (N = 128) imagined that they had the GSTM1 wild-type variant versus the GSTM1 null-type variant. The authors presented lung cancer risk in 6 ways that varied the risk format (absolute risk vs. incremental risk) and the presentation style of the information (no graphics vs. graphic display of foreground only vs. graphic display of foreground + background). Presentation style had minor effects. However, absolute risk information increased negative emotions more than did incremental risk information. Perceptions of risk and negative emotions were most profoundly affected by the difference between having the GSTM1 wild-type variant versus the GSTM1 null-type variant. The authors discuss implications for conveying small probabilities related to genetic risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.