Using comparison scenarios to improve prenatal risk communication

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 48-58

  Pighin, Stefania ^a   Savadori, Lucia ^a   Barilli, Elisa ^a   Rumiati, Rino ^b   Bonalumi, Sara ^c   Ferrari, Maurizio ^c,d,e   Cremonesi, Laura ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

^c SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^d VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^e Diagnostica e Ricerca San Raffaele SpA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Down syndrome; prenatal diagnosis; prenatal genetic counseling; risk communication; risk perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; RISK;

COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; RISK;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84872351852     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12464433     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Gigerenzer G Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty. London: Penguin Books ; 2002 :
2. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003 ; 327: 741-4
3. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001 ; 21: 37-44
4. Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006 ; 17: 407-13
5. Henneman L, Marteau TM, Timmermans DRM. Clinical geneticists' and genetic counselors' views on the communication of genetic risks: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Coun. 2008 ; 73: 42-9
6. Grimes DA, Snively GR. Patients' understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling. Obstet Gynecol. 1999 ; 93: 910-14
7. Slovic P Emotions and Risky Technologies. Roese S, ed. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer ; 2010: 37-59.
8. Zikmund-Fisher B. Time to retire the 1-in-x risk format. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31: 703-4
9. Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K, Colditz GA. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2008 ; 28: 377-84
10. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011 ; 155: 87-97
11. Pighin S, Savadori L, Barilli E, Cremonesi L, Ferrari M, Bonnefon J-F. The 1-in-X effect on the subjective assessment of medical probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31: 721-9
12. Kunreuther H, Novemsky N, Kahneman D. Making low probabilities useful. J Risk Uncertain. 2001 ; 23: 103-20
13. Hsee CK. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Org Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996 ; 67: 247-57
14. Hsee CK, Loewenstein GF, Blount S, Bazerman MH. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluation of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull. 1999 ; 125: 576-90
15. Keller C, Siegrist M, Visschers V. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Anal. 2009 ; 29: 1255-63
16. Rosch E. Natural categories. Cogn Psychol. 1973 ; 4: 328-50
17. Rosch E, Mervis CB. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cogn Psychol. 1975 ; 7: 573-605
18. Julian-Reynier C, Macquart-Moulin G, Moatti JP, Aurran Y, Chabal F, Ayme S. Reasons for women's non-uptake of amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn. 1994 ; 14: 859-64
19. Vergani P, Locatelli A, Biffi A, et al. Factors affecting the decision regarding amniocentesis in women at genetic risk because of age 35 years or older. Prenat Diagn. 2002 ; 22: 769-74
20. Cohen J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2 nd ed.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum ; 1988 :
21. 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: 290-7
22. Keller C, Siegrist M. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med Decis Making. 2009 ; 29: 483-90
23. Miron-Shatz T, Hanoch Y, Graef D, Sagi M. Presentation format affects comprehension and risk assessment: the case of prenatal screening. J Health Commun. 2012 ; 14: 439-50
24. Peters E, Sol Hart P, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 31: 432-6
25. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckman NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009 ; 135: 943-73
26. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks to low-numeracy people. Health Psychol. 2009 ; 28: 210-6
27. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks. Soc Sci Med. 2010 ; 70: 1019-25
28. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 ; 73: 448-55
29. Barilli E, Savadori L, Pighin S, et al. From chance to choice: the use of a verbal analogy in the communication of risk. Health Risk Soc. 2010 ; 12: 546-59
30. Pighin S, Bonnefon JF, Savadori S. Overcoming number numbness in prenatal risk communication. Prenat Diagn. 2011 ; 31: 809-13