ArticleJournal of community genetics2025
Developing a questionnaire to explore lay people's preferences for communicating hereditary conditions within families: insights from a cognitive interview study.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2025. 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.
- Learning about the genetic risk in my family: Preferences of Italian nurses.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Cascade testing as the missing link in cancer prevention among Lynch syndrome families.Familial cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive interviews are a valuable qualitative method for developing and refining survey instruments, particularly on complex topics such as genetic health. They help address misunderstandings between intended meanings and respondent interpretations, enhancing data validity and ensuring comprehensibility. This study aimed to refine a questionnaire exploring the attitudes and preferences of the Italian general population regarding the communication of potential hereditary conditions within families. Through iterative testing, issues related to questionnaire instructions, question wording, and the sensitive nature of the topics were identified and addressed. Most concerns emerged in the first round of cognitive interviews, while the second round only required minor refinements. The qualitative analysis identified four key themes reflecting participants' challenges in understanding genetic information: (1) difficulties with genetic terminology, including gene names and scientific jargon, which induced anxiety and hindered comprehension; (2) ambiguities surrounding the terms "genetic testing" and "family," with confusion about the nature of genetic testing and the scope of "family" in genetic contexts; (3) misinterpretations of "genetic risk" as an existing disease diagnosis rather than a probabilistic concept, leading to misunderstandings about the implications of genetic predisposition; and (4) conflation of "authorization" and "responsibility" in genetic communication, further complicated by uncertainty regarding privacy and confidentiality. Findings from this study informed targeted modifications to the questionnaire to enhance its clarity and accessibility. Our study highlights the importance of cognitive interviewing in refining survey tools on genetic communication, ensuring that such instruments effectively capture public perceptions and facilitate informed decision-making.
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.