The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: A multicenter controlled trial

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Henneman, Lidewij ^a   Oosterwijk, Jan C ^b   Van Asperen, Christi J ^c   Menko, Fred H ^a   Ockhuysen Vermey, Caroline F ^a   Kostense, Piet J ^a   Claassen, Liesbeth ^a   Timmermans, Daniëlle R M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Cancer worry; Decision making; Genetic counseling; Graphical display; Risk communication; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENETICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT REFERRAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; DATA DISPLAY; FEMALE; HUMANS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; RISK FACTORS;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84876786848     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-55     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Julian-Reynier C, Welkenhuysen M, Hagoel L, Decruyenaere M, Hopwood P, Eur J Hum Genet 2003 11 725 736 10.1038/sj.ejhg. 5201037 14512961 (Pubitemid 37337054)
2. Penetrance estimates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on genetic testing in a Clinical Cancer Genetics service setting: risks of breast/ovarian cancer quoted should reflect the cancer burden in the family. Evans DG, Shenton A, Woodward E, Lalloo F, Howell A, Maher ER, BMC Cancer 2008 8 155 10.1186/1471-2407-8-155 18513387 (Pubitemid 352024891)
3. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. Chen SN, Parmigiani G, J Clin Oncol 2007 25 1329 1333 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1066 17416853 (Pubitemid 46706879)
4. A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy. Smerecnik CM, Mesters I, Verweij E, De Vries NK, De VH, J Genet Couns 2009 18 217 228 10.1007/s10897-008-9210-z 19291376
5. Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review. Butow PN, Lobb EA, Meiser B, Barratt A, Tucker KM, Med J Aust 2003 178 77 81 12526728 (Pubitemid 36187626)
6. Cancer risk management practices of noncarriers within BRCA1/2 mutation positive families in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer. Dawson SJ, Price MA, Jenkins MA, McKinley JM, Butow PN, McLachlan SA, J Clin Oncol 2008 26 225 232 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.0262 18040054
7. Underestimation of breast cancer risk: influence on screening behavior. Katapodi MC, Dodd MJ, Lee KA, Facione NC, Oncol Nurs Forum 2009 36 306 314 10.1188/09.ONF.306-314 19403452
8. The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer. Watson M, Lloyd S, Davidson J, Meyer L, Eeles R, Ebbs S, Br J Cancer 1999 79 868 874 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690139 10070883 (Pubitemid 29082119)
9. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Timmermans D, Molewijk B, Stiggelbout A, Kievit J, Patient Educ Couns 2004 54 255 263 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00238-6 15324976 (Pubitemid 39485941)
10. Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women. Marteau TM, Saidi G, Goodburn S, Lawton J, Michie S, Bobrow M, Prenat Diagn 2000 20 714 718 10.1002/1097-0223(200009)20: 9<714::AID-PD906>3.0.CO;2-4 11015699
11. Clinical geneticists' and genetic counselors' views on the communication of genetic risks: a qualitative study. Henneman L, Marteau TM, Timmermans D, Patient Educ Couns 2008 73 42 49 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.009 18583088
12. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke EL, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007 8 53 96
13. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I, Science 2011 333 1393 1400 10.1126/science.1191181 21903802
14. The visual communication of risk. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG, J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999 25 149 163 10854471
15. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A, Patient Educ Couns 2008 73 448 455 10.1016/j.pec.2008. 07.023 18755566
16. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G, Health Psychol 2009 28 210 216 19290713
17. Patients' preferences for ways to communicate benefits of cardiovascular medication. Goodyear-Smith F, Kenealy T, Wells S, Arroll B, Horsburgh M, Ann Fam Med 2011 9 121 127 10.1370/afm.1193 21403138
18. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Soc Sci Med 2010 70 1019 1025 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.031 20116159
19. Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: Individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Gaissmaier W, Wegwarth O, Skopec D, Muller AS, Broschinski S, Politi MC, Health Psychol 2012 31 286 296 21842998
20. Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Timmermans DR, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L, Patient Educ Couns 2008 73 443 447 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.013 18722073
21. Foreground: background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Stone ER, Sieck WR, Bull BE, Yates JF, Parks SC, Rus CJ, Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 2003 90 19 36 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00003-7 (Pubitemid 36556635)
22. Frequency format diagram and probability chart for breast cancer risk communication: a prospective, randomized trial. Ghosh K, Crawford BJ, Pruthi S, Williams CI, Neal L, Sandhu NP, BMC Womens Health 2008 8 18 10.1186/1472-6874-8- 18 18937844
23. Risk avoidance: graphs versus numbers. Chua HF, Yates JF, Shah P, Mem Cognit 2006 34 399 410 10.3758/BF03193417 16752603
24. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K, J Health Commun 2006 11 167 182 10.1080/10810730500526695 16537286 (Pubitemid 43393240)
25. The effect of graphical and numerical presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception. Siegrist M, Orlow P, Keller C, Med Decis Making 2008 28 567 574 10.1177/0272989X08315237 18566487 (Pubitemid 351989997)
26. Design of the BRISC study: a multicentre controlled clinical trial to optimize the communication of breast cancer risks in genetic counselling. Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L, van Asperen CJ, Oosterwijk JC, Menko FH, Timmermans DR, BMC Cancer 2008 8 283 10.1186/1471-2407-8-283 18834503
27. STOET, Erfelijke tumoren: Richtlijnen voor diagnostiek en preventie Stichting Opsporing Erfelijke Tumoren en de Vereniging Klinische Genetica Nederland, Werkgroep Klinische Oncogenetica 2005
28. Psychological Side-Effects of Breast-Cancer Screening. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Jepson C, Brody D, Boyce A, Health Psychol 1991 10 259 267 1915212
29. Validation of the dutch short form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: considerations for usage in screening outcomes. van der Bij AK, de Weerd S, Cikot RJ, Steegers EA, Braspenning JC, Community Genet 2003 6 84 87 10.1159/000073003 14560068 (Pubitemid 37323446)
30. The perceived personal control (PPC) questionnaire as an outcome of genetic counseling: reliability and validity of the instrument. Smets EM, Pieterse AH, Aalfs CM, Ausems MG, van Dulmen AM, Am J Med Genet A 2006 140 843 850 16532462
31. Different formats for the communication of risks: verbal, numerical and graphical formats. Timmermans DR, Oudhoff JO, Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Cochran JJ, 2010
32. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Feldman-Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, Brundage MD, Mackillop WJ, Med Decis Making 2000 20 228 238 10.1177/0272989X0002000208 10772360 (Pubitemid 30198752)
33. Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Kurian AW, Munoz DF, Rust P, Schackmann EA, Smith M, Clarke L, J Clin Oncol 2012 30 497 506 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.6060 22231042
34. How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review. Sivell S, Elwyn G, Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Iredale R, Shaw C, J Genet Couns 2008 17 30 63 10.1007/s10897-007-9132-1 17968638 (Pubitemid 351230515)
35. A family history of breast cancer: women's experiences from a theoretical perspective. Rees G, Fry A, Cull A, Soc Sci Med 2001 52 1433 1440 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00248-3 11286366 (Pubitemid 32175697)
36. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF, Psychol Bull 2009 135 943 973 19883143
37. Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates. Brown SM, Culver JO, Osann KE, MacDonald DJ, Sand S, Thornton AA, Patient Educ Couns 2011 83 92 98 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.027 20554149
38. Do women understand the odds? Risk perceptions and recall of risk information in women with a family history of breast cancer. Hopwood P, Howell A, Lalloo F, Evans G, Community Genet 2003 6 214 223 10.1159/000079383 15331867 (Pubitemid 39179228)