ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017
How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Cardiovascular risk communication strategies in primary prevention. A systematic review with narrative synthesis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2022Pooled it
- Mismatch between self-perceived and calculated cardiometabolic disease risk among participants in a prevention program for cardiometabolic disease: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2020Trial
- Prioritizing Equity in Design and Implementation of Consumer-Facing Digital Resources to Support Engagement and Shared Decision-Making.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient and Physician Perspectives on Using Risk Prediction to Support Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Making.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Laypersons' understanding of statistical concepts commonly used in prescription drug promotion: A review of the research literature.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2024Article
- Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Advanced subclinical atherosclerosis: A novel category within the cardiovascular risk continuum with distinct treatment implications.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2023Article
- Attitudes of European students towards family decision-making and the harmonisation of consent systems in deceased organ donation: a cross-national survey.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Association of quantitative information and patient knowledge about prostate cancer outcomes.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2022Article
- Patterns of social mixing in England changed in line with restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic (September 2020 to April 2022).Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The Acceptance and Use of the e-Health Instrument 'The Personal Health Check' in Four Dutch Municipalities: Lessons Learned.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Article
- All things considered, my risk for diabetes is medium: A risk personalization process of familial risk for type 2 diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- How Uncertainty Influences Lay People's Attitudes and Risk Perceptions Concerning Predictive Genetic Testing and Risk Communication.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisease risk calculators are increasingly web-based, but previous studies have shown that risk information often poses problems for lay users.
objectiveTo examine how lay people understand the result derived from an online cardiometabolic risk calculator.
designA qualitative study was performed, using the risk calculator in the Dutch National Prevention Program for cardiometabolic diseases. The study consisted of three parts: (i) attention: completion of the risk calculator while an eye tracker registered eye movements; (ii) recall: completion of a recall task; and (iii) interpretation: participation in a semi-structured interview. SETTING AND
participantsWe recruited people from the target population through an advertisement in a local newspaper; 16 people participated in the study, which took place in our university laboratory.
resultsEye-tracking data showed that participants looked most extensively at numerical risk information. Percentages were recalled well, whereas natural frequencies and verbal labels were remembered less well. Five qualitative themes were derived from the interview data: (i) numerical information does not really sink in; (ii) the verbal categorical label made no real impact on people; (iii) people relied heavily on existing knowledge and beliefs; (iv) people zoomed in on risk factors, especially family history of diseases; and (v) people often compared their situation to that of their peers. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionAlthough people paid attention to and recalled the risk information to a certain extent, they seemed to have difficulty in properly using this information for interpreting their 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.