Communicating Down syndrome risk according to maternal age: "1-in-X" effect on perceived risk

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 777-782

  Pighin, Stefania ^a   Savadori, Lucia ^b   Barilli, Elisa ^b   Galbiati, Silvia ^c   Smid, Maddalene ^c   Ferrari, Maurizio ^c,d   Cremonesi, Laura ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY IUAV OF VENICE   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^c SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^d VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

1 IN X EFFECT; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOWN SYNDROME; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL AGE; NUMERICAL CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; ADOLESCENT; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PRENATAL CARE; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMANS; MATERNAL AGE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84938592073     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4606     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Making 2013;13:1-15.
2. Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Continued use of 1-in-X risk communication is a systematic problem. Med Decis Making 2014. DOI:10.1177/0272989X13516198.
3. Brase GL. Which statistical formats facilitate what decisions? The perception and influence of different statistical information formats. J Behav. Decis. Making 2002;15:381-401.
4. Grimes DA, Snively GR. Patients' understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counselling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:910-4.
5. Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K, Colditz G. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making 2008;28:377-84.
6. Pighin S, Savadori L, Barilli E, et al. The 1-in-X effect on the subjective assessment of medical probabilities. Med Decis Making 2011;31:721-9.
7. Sirota M, Juanchich M, Kostopoulou O, Hanak R. Decisive evidence on a smaller-than-you-think phenomenon: revisiting the '1-in-X' effect on subjective medical probabilities. Med Decis Making 2014;34:419-29.
8. Hedges L, Olkin I. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. Academic Press: Orlando; 1985.
9. National Health Service. 2013 Causes of Down's syndrome, http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Downs-syndrome/Pages/causes.aspx. [accessed on 28 October 2014].
10. Antonfarakis SE, Peterson MB, McInnis MG, et al. The meiotic stage of nondisjunction in trisomy 21: determination by using DNA polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet 1992;5:1411-16.
11. Cuckle HS, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. Estimating a woman's risk of having a pregnancy associated with Down's syndrome using her age and serum α-fetoprotein level. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:387-40.
12. Morris JK, Mutton DE, Alberman E. Revised estimates of the maternal age specific live birth prevalence of Down's syndrome. J Med Screen 2002;9:2-6.
13. Slovic P. If I look at the mass I will never act: psychic numbing and genocide. In Emotions and Risky Technologies, Roese S (ed). Berlin: Springer, 2010;37-59.
14. Oudhoff JP, Timmermans DRM. The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice. Med Decis Making 2015. DOI:10.1177/0272989X15576487.
15. Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely E. Effective communication of risks to young adults: using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. J Exp Psychol Appl 2011;17:270.
16. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25:1323-29.