Risk communication strategies: State of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 11, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 725-736

  Julian Reynier, Claire ^a   Welkenhuysen, Myriam ^b   Hagoel, Lea ^c   Decruyenaere, Marleen ^b   Hopwood, Penelope ^d   Evers Kiebooms, G ^b   Legius, E ^b   Rennert, G ^c   De Palo, G ^e   Borreani, C ^e   Gangeri, L ^e   Bourret, P ^a   Chabal, F ^a   Moatti, J P ^a   Sevilla, C ^a   Elsinger, F ^a   Sobol, H ^a   Nippert, I ^f   Schlegelberger, B ^g   Tibben, A ^h   Van Asperen, C ^h   Evans, G ^d   more..

^a INSTITUT PAOLI CALMETTES   (France)

^b CENTER FOR HUMAN GENETICS   (Belgium)

^c TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^d CHRISTIE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^g HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^h LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

BRCA1; BRCA2; Cancer; Communication; HNPCC; Risk

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER GENETICS; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COLORECTAL CANCER; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EMBASE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENETIC RISK; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MEDLINE; OVARY CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIST; PSYCINFO; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOLOGY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC SERVICES; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROBABILITY; RISK; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 10744230585     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201037     Document Type: Review

References (62)

1. Kessler S: Psyche and helix: psychological aspects of genetic counseling. New York: Wiley, 2000.
2. Armstrong K, Eisen A, Weber B: Assessing the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 564-571.
3. Emery J, Lucassen A, Murphy M: Common hereditary cancers and implications for primary care. Lancet 2001; 358: 56-63.
4. Rimer BK, Glassman B: Is there a use for tailored print communications in cancer risk communications? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 140-148.
5. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A: Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 2002; 324: 827-830.
6. Vlek C: Risk assessment, risk perception and decision making about courses of action involving genetic risks. Birth Defects Orig Articles Ser 1987; 23: 171-207.
7. Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Welkenhuysen M, Denayer L, Claes E: Cognitive representations of breast cancer, emotional distress and preventive health behaviour: a theoretical perspective. Psycho-oncology 2000; 9: 528-536.
8. Kreuter MW: Dealing with competing and conflicting risks in cancer communication. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 27-35.
9. Maibach E: Cancer risk communication - what we need to learn. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 179-181.
10. Weinstein ND: What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 15-20.
11. Raffle AE: Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect 2001; 4: 92-98.
12. de Jong MM, Nolte IM, te Meerman GJ et al: Genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 involved in breast cancer susceptibility. J Med Genet 2002; 39: 225-242.
13. Burke W, Press N, Pinsky L: BRCA1 and BRCA2: a small part of the puzzle. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 904-905.
14. Phillips KA, Glendon G, Knight JA: Putting the risk of breast cancer in perspective. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 141-144.
15. Emmons K, Kalkbrenner K, Klar N, Light T, Schneider K, Garber J: Behavioral risk factors among women presenting for genetic testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prevent 2000; 9: 89-94.
16. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG: Risk communication in clinical practice: putting cancer in context. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 124-133.
17. Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S et al: The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations or BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1401-1407.
18. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M et al: Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 1998; 62: 676-689.
19. Eisinger F, Alby N, Bremond A et al: Recommendations for medical management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: The French National Ad Hoc Committee. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 939-950.
20. Rothman AJ, Kiviniemi MT: Treating people with information: an analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 44-51.
21. Lipkus IM, Crawford Y, Fenn K, Biradavolu M, Binder RA, Marcus A, Mason M: Testing different formats for communicating colorectal cancer risk. J Health Commun 1999; 4: 311-324.
22. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG: The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 149-163.
23. Schapira M, Nattinger A, McHorney C: Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 459-467.
24. Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F: How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 740-744.
25. Salovey P: Persuasion for the purpose of cancer risk reduction: a discussion. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 119-122.
26. Bottorff JL, Ratner PA, Johnson JL, Lovato CY, Joab AA: Communicating cancer risk information: the challenges of uncertainty. Patient Educ Counsel 1998; 33: 67-81.
27. Hallowell N, Murton F: The value of written summaries of genetic consultations. Patient Educ Couns 1998; 35: 27-34.
28. Wade WM: Women receiving genetic counseling for breast cancer risk: cancer worry, psychological distress, and risk recall accuracy. Disser Abstr Int 2001; 61: 3865.
29. Evans DGR, Blair V, Greenhalgh R, Hopwood P, Howell A: The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1994; 70: 934-938.
30. Cull A, Miller H, Portefield T et al: The use of videotaped information in cancer genetic counselling: a randomized evaluation study. Br J Cancer 1998; 77: 830-837.
31. Maibach EW, Davis SW, Ter Maat J, Rivera N: Promoting cancer prevention and screening: the impact of the Cancer Information Service. Part 7. J Health Commun 1998; 3: 97-108.
32. Strecher VJ, Greenwood T, Wang C, Dumont D: Interactive multimedia and risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 134-139.
33. O'Connor AM, Fiset V, DeGrasse C et al: Decision aids for patients considering options affecting cancer outcomes: evidence of efficacy and policy implications. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 67-80.
34. Green MJ, McInerney AM, Biesecker BB, Fost N: Education about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: patient preferences for a computer program or genetic counselor. Am J Mved Genet 2001; 103: 24-31.
35. Green MJ, Biesecker BB, McInerney AM, Mauger D, Fost N: An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet 2001; 103: 16-23.
36. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Rovner D et al: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; 25: 140-148.
37. Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Reis-Bergan M: The effect of risk communication on risk perceptions; the significance of individual differences. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 94-100.
38. Hallowell N, Statham H, Murton F, Green J, Richards M: 'Talking about chance': the presentation of risk information during genetic counseling for breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Counsel 1997; 6: 269-286.
39. Lobb EA, Butow PN, Meiser B et al: Women's preferences and consultants' risk communication in familial breast cancer consultations: impact on patient outcomes. J Med Genet 2003; 25.
40. Wilkniss S: Communication of cancer risk information in genetic counseling: does format of presentation affect understanding? Disser Abstr Int B 2000; 61: 3296.
41. Marteau TM, Saidi G, Goodburn S, Lawton J, Michie S, Bobrow M: Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20: 714-718.
42. Fischhoff, B: Why (cancer) risk communication can be hard. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 7-13.
43. Edwards A, Hood K, Matthews E et al: The effectiveness of one-to-one risk communication interventions in health care: a systematic review. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 290-297.
44. Bryant H, Brasher P: Risks and probabilities of breast cancer: short-term versus lifetime probabilities. Can Med Assoc J 1994; 150: 211-216.
45. Johnson B, Slovic P: Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Anal 1995; 15: 485-494.
46. Geller G, Tambor ES, Chase GA, Holtzman NA: Measuring physicians' tolerance for ambiguity and its relationship to their reported practices regarding genetic testing. Med Care 1993; 31: 989-1001.
47. Williams T, Clarke T, Borland R: Effects of message framing on breast cancer related beliefs and behaviors: the role of mediating factors. J Appl Soc Psychol 2001; 31 (Special issue): 925-950.
48. Slovic P, Fischoff P: Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk. in Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp 464-489.
49. Shiloh S, Sagi M: Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence risks. Am J Med Genet 1989; 33: 130-135.
50. Jasper JD, Goel R, Einarson A, Gallo M, Koren G: Effects of framing on teratogenic risk perception in pregnant women. Lancet 2001; 358: 1237-1238.
51. Vernon SW: Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: a review. J Nat Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 101-109.
52. Marteau T, Lerman C: Genetic risk and behavioral change. BMJ 2001; 322: 1056-1059.
53. Emmons KM, Koch-Weser S, Atwood K, Conboy L, Rudd R, Colditz G: A qualitative evaluation of the Harvard Cancer Risk Index. J Health Commun 1999; 4: 181-193.
54. Lerman C, Biesecker B, Benkendorf JL et al: Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89: 148-157.
55. Brain K, Gray J, Norman P et al: Randomized trial of a specialist genetic assessment service for familial breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1345-1351.
56. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, Welch HG: Women's perceptions of breast cancer risk: how you ask matters. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 221-229.
57. Meiser B, Halliday J: What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review. Soc Sci Med 2002; 54: 1463-1470.
58. Hopwood P: Breast cancer risk perception: what do we know and understand? Breast Cancer Res 2000; 2: 323-327.
59. Aspinwall LG: Introduction of section: persuasion for the purpose of cancer risk reduction: understanding responses to risk communications. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 88-93.
60. Croyle RT, Lerman C: Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; 25: 59-66.
61. McBride C, Halabi S, Bepler G, Lyna P, McIntyre L, Lipkus I, Albright J: Maximizing the motivational impact of feedback of lung cancer susceptibility on smokers' desire to quit. J Health Commun 2000; 5: 229-241.
62. Lipkus IM, Biradavolu M, Fenn K, Keller P, Rimer BK: Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences. Health Commun 2001; 13: 205-226.