Prenatal screening and the communication and perception of risks

International Congress Series

Volumn 1279, Issue , 2005, Pages 234-243

  Timmermans, Daniëlle R M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Prenatal screening; Risk communication; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646445220     PISSN: 05315131     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ics.2004.12.057     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Timmermans D.R.M., et al. Different formats for communicating risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Educ. Couns. 54 (2004) 255-263
2. Marteau T.M., et al. Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women. Prenat. Diagn. 20 (2000) 714-718
3. Hoffrage U., and Gigerenzer G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad. Med. 73 (1998) 538-540
4. Woloshin S., and Schwartz L.M. How can we help people make sense of medical data?. Eff. Clin. Pract. 2 (1999) 176-183
5. Calman K.C. Cancer: science and society and the communication of risk. BMJ 313 (1996) 799-802
6. Nakao M.A., and Axelrod S. Numbers are better than words: verbal specifications of frequencies have no place in medicine. Am. J. Med. 74 (1983) 1061-1065
7. Timmermans D.R.M., and Mileman Ph. Lost for words: using verbal terms to express probability in oral radiology. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 22 (1993) 171-173
8. Timmermans D.R.M. The roles of experience and domain of expertise in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions. Med. Decis. Mak. 14 (1994) 146-156
9. Bryant G.D., and Norman G.R. Expressions of probability: words and numbers. N. Engl. J. Med. 302 (1980) 411
10. Mapes R.E.A. Verbal and numerical estimates of probability in therapeutic contexts. Soc. Sci. Med. 13 (1979) 277-282
11. Wallsten T.S., Budescu D.V., and Erev I. Preferences and reasons for communicating probability information in verbal and numerical terms. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 31 (1988) 135-138
12. Brun W., and Teigen K.H. Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent or both?. Organ. Behav. Hum. 41 (1988) 390-404
13. Yamagishi K. When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 11 (1997) 495-506
14. Grimes D.A., and Snively G.R. Patients' understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling. Obstet. Gynecol. 93 (1999) 910-914
15. Cuckle H.S., Wald N.J., and Thompson S.G. Estimating a woman's risk of having a pregnancy associated with Down syndrome using her age and serum alpha-fetoprotein level. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 94 (1987) 387-402
16. Wertz D.C., Sorenson J.R., and Heeren T.C. Clients' interpretation of risks provided in genetic counseling. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 39 (1986) 253-264
17. Marteau T.M. Prenatal testing: towards realistic expectations of patients, providers and policy makers. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 19 (2002) 5-6
18. Lipkus I.M., and Holland J.G. The visual communication of risk. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 25 (1999) 149-163
19. Lerman C., Kash K., and Stefanek M. Younger women at increased risk for breast cancer: perceived risk, psychological well-being, and surveillance behavior. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 16 (1994) 171-176
20. Evans D.G., et al. Perception of risk in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 67 (1993) 612-614
21. Marteau T.M., et al. Perceived risk not actual risk predicts uptake of amniocentesis. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 98 (1993) 282-286
22. Lloyd S., et al. Familial breast cancer: a controlled study of risk perception, psychological morbidity and health beliefs in women attending for genetic counselling. Br. J. Cancer 74 (1996) 482-487
23. Meiser B., and Halliday J.L. What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 54 (2002) 1463-1470
24. In: Kahneman D., Slovic P., and Tversky A. (Eds). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases (1982), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
25. Parsons E., and Atkinson P. Lay constructions of genetic risk. Sociol. Health Illn. 15 (1993) 437-455
26. Weinstein N. Why it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychol. 3 (1984) 431-457
27. Lippman-Hand A., and Fraser F.C. Genetic counseling: provision and reception of information. Am. J. Med. Genet. 3 (1979) 113-127
28. M. Van den Berg, D.R.M., et al. An interview study about pregnant women's decisions about prenatal screening (in preparation).
29. Loewenstein G.F., et al. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127 (2001) 267-286
30. Rottenstreich Y., and Hsee C.K. Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol. Sci. 12 (2001) 185-190
31. Van den Berg M., et al. Decision making of pregnant women who are offered prenatal screening: does perceived risk and expected utility matter?. Oral Presentation; Conference on Subjective Probability, Utility and Decision Making (2003 (August)) Zurich
32. Gigerenzer G. Reckoning with risk. Learning to live with uncertainty (2002), Penguin Books, London