Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26332492›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2016

Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study.

Amelia K Smit, Louise A Keogh, Jolyn Hersch, Ainsley J Newson, Phyllis Butow, Gabrielle Williams, Anne E Cust

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amelia K SmitCancer Epidemiology and Services Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Louise A KeoghCentre for Women's Health, Gender and Society, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Jolyn HerschScreening and Test Evaluation Program, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ainsley J NewsonCentre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Phyllis ButowCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Gabrielle WilliamsScreening and Test Evaluation Program, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Anne E CustCancer Epidemiology and Services Research, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUGovernment of New South Wales · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonalized genomic risk information has the potential to motivate behaviour change and promote population health, but the success of this will depend upon effective risk communication strategies.

objectiveTo determine preferences for different graphical and written risk communication formats, and the delivery of genomic risk information including the mode of communication and the role of health professionals.

designFocus groups, transcribed and analysed thematically.

participantsThirty-four participants from the public.

methodsParticipants were provided with, and invited to discuss, a hypothetical scenario giving an individual's personalized genomic risk of melanoma displayed in several graphical formats.

resultsParticipants preferred risk formats that were familiar and easy to understand, such as a 'double pie chart' and '100 person diagram' (pictograph). The 100 person diagram was considered persuasive because it humanized and personalized the risk information. People described the pie chart format as resembling bank data and food (such as cake and pizza). Participants thought that email, web-based platforms and postal mail were viable options for communicating genomic risk information. However, they felt that it was important that a health professional (either a genetic counsellor or 'informed' general practitioner) be available for discussion at the time of receiving the risk information, to minimize potential negative emotional responses and misunderstanding. Face-to-face or telephone delivery was preferred for delivery of high-risk results.

conclusionsThese public preferences for communication strategies for genomic risk information will help to guide translation of genome-based knowledge into improved population health.

Indexed as

CommunicationGenomicsPatient PreferenceAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedNew South WalesRisk AssessmentRisk Factorscommunicationgeneticgenomicmelanomapublic preferencesrisk

Identifiers

PMID26332492
PMCPMC5139046
OpenAlexW1788794177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.