Cargando…

Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study

BACKGROUND: Personalized genomic risk information has the potential to motivate behaviour change and promote population health, but the success of this will depend upon effective risk communication strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine preferences for different graphical and written risk communication...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smit, Amelia K., Keogh, Louise A., Hersch, Jolyn, Newson, Ainsley J., Butow, Phyllis, Williams, Gabrielle, Cust, Anne E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26332492
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12406
_version_ 1782472173242286080
author Smit, Amelia K.
Keogh, Louise A.
Hersch, Jolyn
Newson, Ainsley J.
Butow, Phyllis
Williams, Gabrielle
Cust, Anne E.
author_facet Smit, Amelia K.
Keogh, Louise A.
Hersch, Jolyn
Newson, Ainsley J.
Butow, Phyllis
Williams, Gabrielle
Cust, Anne E.
author_sort Smit, Amelia K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Personalized genomic risk information has the potential to motivate behaviour change and promote population health, but the success of this will depend upon effective risk communication strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine preferences for different graphical and written risk communication formats, and the delivery of genomic risk information including the mode of communication and the role of health professionals. DESIGN: Focus groups, transcribed and analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty‐four participants from the public. METHODS: Participants were provided with, and invited to discuss, a hypothetical scenario giving an individual's personalized genomic risk of melanoma displayed in several graphical formats. RESULTS: Participants preferred risk formats that were familiar and easy to understand, such as a ‘double pie chart’ and ‘100 person diagram’ (pictograph). The 100 person diagram was considered persuasive because it humanized and personalized the risk information. People described the pie chart format as resembling bank data and food (such as cake and pizza). Participants thought that email, web‐based platforms and postal mail were viable options for communicating genomic risk information. However, they felt that it was important that a health professional (either a genetic counsellor or ‘informed’ general practitioner) be available for discussion at the time of receiving the risk information, to minimize potential negative emotional responses and misunderstanding. Face‐to‐face or telephone delivery was preferred for delivery of high‐risk results. CONCLUSIONS: These public preferences for communication strategies for genomic risk information will help to guide translation of genome‐based knowledge into improved population health.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5139046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51390462016-12-12 Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study Smit, Amelia K. Keogh, Louise A. Hersch, Jolyn Newson, Ainsley J. Butow, Phyllis Williams, Gabrielle Cust, Anne E. Health Expect Original Research Papers BACKGROUND: Personalized genomic risk information has the potential to motivate behaviour change and promote population health, but the success of this will depend upon effective risk communication strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine preferences for different graphical and written risk communication formats, and the delivery of genomic risk information including the mode of communication and the role of health professionals. DESIGN: Focus groups, transcribed and analysed thematically. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty‐four participants from the public. METHODS: Participants were provided with, and invited to discuss, a hypothetical scenario giving an individual's personalized genomic risk of melanoma displayed in several graphical formats. RESULTS: Participants preferred risk formats that were familiar and easy to understand, such as a ‘double pie chart’ and ‘100 person diagram’ (pictograph). The 100 person diagram was considered persuasive because it humanized and personalized the risk information. People described the pie chart format as resembling bank data and food (such as cake and pizza). Participants thought that email, web‐based platforms and postal mail were viable options for communicating genomic risk information. However, they felt that it was important that a health professional (either a genetic counsellor or ‘informed’ general practitioner) be available for discussion at the time of receiving the risk information, to minimize potential negative emotional responses and misunderstanding. Face‐to‐face or telephone delivery was preferred for delivery of high‐risk results. CONCLUSIONS: These public preferences for communication strategies for genomic risk information will help to guide translation of genome‐based knowledge into improved population health. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-09-01 2016-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5139046/ /pubmed/26332492 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12406 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Health Expectations. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research Papers
Smit, Amelia K.
Keogh, Louise A.
Hersch, Jolyn
Newson, Ainsley J.
Butow, Phyllis
Williams, Gabrielle
Cust, Anne E.
Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study
title Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study
title_full Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study
title_fullStr Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study
title_full_unstemmed Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study
title_short Public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study
title_sort public preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information: a focus group study
topic Original Research Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5139046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26332492
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12406
work_keys_str_mv AT smitameliak publicpreferencesforcommunicatingpersonalgenomicriskinformationafocusgroupstudy
AT keoghlouisea publicpreferencesforcommunicatingpersonalgenomicriskinformationafocusgroupstudy
AT herschjolyn publicpreferencesforcommunicatingpersonalgenomicriskinformationafocusgroupstudy
AT newsonainsleyj publicpreferencesforcommunicatingpersonalgenomicriskinformationafocusgroupstudy
AT butowphyllis publicpreferencesforcommunicatingpersonalgenomicriskinformationafocusgroupstudy
AT williamsgabrielle publicpreferencesforcommunicatingpersonalgenomicriskinformationafocusgroupstudy
AT custannee publicpreferencesforcommunicatingpersonalgenomicriskinformationafocusgroupstudy