ArticlePatient education and counseling2021
Impact of numeracy preferences on information needs for genome sequencing results.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "The power imbalance was blown out the window": developing and implementing creative workshops to enhance communication of statistics in patient and public involvement in clinical trials.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Investigation of interest in and timing preference for cancer predisposition testing and expanded carrier screening among women of reproductive age.PEC innovation · 2023Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated how self-reported numeracy ability and preferences predict preferences for the amount and types of information provided about genome sequencing results among 1080 women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger.
methodsParticipants reported their level of interest in 14 topics related to genome sequencing results on a survey. We calculated a Participant Information Needs (PIN) value based on the number of topics for which a participant wanted "a lot" of information. Numeracy was assessed using the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Analyses examined associations between the numeracy ability and preferences subscales, information needs for individual content topics, and PIN.
resultsHigher preference for numeric data was correlated with increased PIN (β = 0.60, p < 0.01), while numeric ability was not correlated (β=0.16, p = 0.22). Family composition and knowledge about sequencing benefits were also significant covariates. Patients most preferred information on topics related to disease risk and health implications.
conclusionThere may be utility in separating numeracy ability and preferences into two components in future research in order to investigate how numeracy impacts the return of genetic testing results. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These data suggest that numeracy preferences may be important to inform strategies for the return of genetic results.
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.