Publication

Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats

Henneman, L., van Asperen, C. J., Oosterwijk, J. C., Menko, F. H., Claassen, L. & Timmermans, D. R., 19-Feb-2020, In : Patient Preference and Adherence. 14, p. 333-342 10 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Henneman, L., van Asperen, C. J., Oosterwijk, J. C., Menko, F. H., Claassen, L., & Timmermans, D. R. (2020). Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats. Patient Preference and Adherence, 14, 333-342. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S232941

Author

Henneman, Lidewij ; van Asperen, Christi J ; Oosterwijk, Jan C ; Menko, Fred H ; Claassen, Liesbeth ; Timmermans, Daniëlle Rm. / Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats. In: Patient Preference and Adherence. 2020 ; Vol. 14. pp. 333-342.

Harvard

Henneman, L, van Asperen, CJ, Oosterwijk, JC, Menko, FH, Claassen, L & Timmermans, DR 2020, 'Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats', Patient Preference and Adherence, vol. 14, pp. 333-342. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S232941

Standard

Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats. / Henneman, Lidewij; van Asperen, Christi J; Oosterwijk, Jan C; Menko, Fred H; Claassen, Liesbeth; Timmermans, Daniëlle Rm.

In: Patient Preference and Adherence, Vol. 14, 19.02.2020, p. 333-342.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Henneman L, van Asperen CJ, Oosterwijk JC, Menko FH, Claassen L, Timmermans DR. Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2020 Feb 19;14:333-342. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S232941


BibTeX

@article{e837c479ce1b4c1d96239c096164dfe4,
title = "Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding?: A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats",
abstract = "Purpose: Counselees' preferences are considered important for the choice of risk communication format and for improving patient-centered care. We here report on counselees' preferences for how risks are presented in familial breast cancer counseling and the impact of this preferred format on their understanding of risk.Patients and Methods: As part of a practice-based randomized controlled trial, 326 unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer received their lifetime risk in one of five presentation formats after standard genetic counseling in three Dutch familial cancer clinics: 1) in percentages, 2) in frequencies ({"}X out of 100{"}), 3) in frequencies plus graphical format (10×10 human icons), 4) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk and 5) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk plus graphical format. Format preferences and risk understanding (accuracy) were assessed at 2-week follow-up by a questionnaire, completed by 279/326 women.Results: The most preferred risk communication formats were numbers combined with verbal descriptions (37%) and numbers only (26%). Of the numerical formats, most (55%) women preferred percentages. The majority (73%) preferred to be informed about both lifetime and 10-year age-related risk. Women who had received a graphical display were more likely to choose a graphical display as their preferred format. There was no significant effect between the intervention groups with regard to risk accuracy. Overall, women given risk estimates in their preferred format had a slightly better understanding of risk.Conclusion: The results suggest that the accuracy of breast cancer risk estimation is slightly better for women who had received this information in their preferred format, but the risk format used had no effect on women's risk accuracy. To meet the most frequent preference, counselors should consider providing a time frame of reference (eg, risk in the next 10 years) in a numerical format, in addition to lifetime risk.",
keywords = "risk communication, breast cancer, genetic counseling, patient preference, understanding, risk accuracy, VISUAL AIDS, INFORMATION, PREFERENCES, COMPREHENSION, NUMERACY, BENEFITS, IMPACT, PROBABILITY, PERCEPTION",
author = "Lidewij Henneman and {van Asperen}, {Christi J} and Oosterwijk, {Jan C} and Menko, {Fred H} and Liesbeth Claassen and Timmermans, {Dani{\"e}lle Rm}",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2020 Henneman et al.",
year = "2020",
month = feb,
day = "19",
doi = "10.2147/PPA.S232941",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "333--342",
journal = "Patient Preference and Adherence",
issn = "1177-889X",
publisher = "DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding?

T2 - A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats

AU - Henneman, Lidewij

AU - van Asperen, Christi J

AU - Oosterwijk, Jan C

AU - Menko, Fred H

AU - Claassen, Liesbeth

AU - Timmermans, Daniëlle Rm

N1 - © 2020 Henneman et al.

PY - 2020/2/19

Y1 - 2020/2/19

N2 - Purpose: Counselees' preferences are considered important for the choice of risk communication format and for improving patient-centered care. We here report on counselees' preferences for how risks are presented in familial breast cancer counseling and the impact of this preferred format on their understanding of risk.Patients and Methods: As part of a practice-based randomized controlled trial, 326 unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer received their lifetime risk in one of five presentation formats after standard genetic counseling in three Dutch familial cancer clinics: 1) in percentages, 2) in frequencies ("X out of 100"), 3) in frequencies plus graphical format (10×10 human icons), 4) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk and 5) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk plus graphical format. Format preferences and risk understanding (accuracy) were assessed at 2-week follow-up by a questionnaire, completed by 279/326 women.Results: The most preferred risk communication formats were numbers combined with verbal descriptions (37%) and numbers only (26%). Of the numerical formats, most (55%) women preferred percentages. The majority (73%) preferred to be informed about both lifetime and 10-year age-related risk. Women who had received a graphical display were more likely to choose a graphical display as their preferred format. There was no significant effect between the intervention groups with regard to risk accuracy. Overall, women given risk estimates in their preferred format had a slightly better understanding of risk.Conclusion: The results suggest that the accuracy of breast cancer risk estimation is slightly better for women who had received this information in their preferred format, but the risk format used had no effect on women's risk accuracy. To meet the most frequent preference, counselors should consider providing a time frame of reference (eg, risk in the next 10 years) in a numerical format, in addition to lifetime risk.

AB - Purpose: Counselees' preferences are considered important for the choice of risk communication format and for improving patient-centered care. We here report on counselees' preferences for how risks are presented in familial breast cancer counseling and the impact of this preferred format on their understanding of risk.Patients and Methods: As part of a practice-based randomized controlled trial, 326 unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer received their lifetime risk in one of five presentation formats after standard genetic counseling in three Dutch familial cancer clinics: 1) in percentages, 2) in frequencies ("X out of 100"), 3) in frequencies plus graphical format (10×10 human icons), 4) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk and 5) in frequencies and 10-year age-related risk plus graphical format. Format preferences and risk understanding (accuracy) were assessed at 2-week follow-up by a questionnaire, completed by 279/326 women.Results: The most preferred risk communication formats were numbers combined with verbal descriptions (37%) and numbers only (26%). Of the numerical formats, most (55%) women preferred percentages. The majority (73%) preferred to be informed about both lifetime and 10-year age-related risk. Women who had received a graphical display were more likely to choose a graphical display as their preferred format. There was no significant effect between the intervention groups with regard to risk accuracy. Overall, women given risk estimates in their preferred format had a slightly better understanding of risk.Conclusion: The results suggest that the accuracy of breast cancer risk estimation is slightly better for women who had received this information in their preferred format, but the risk format used had no effect on women's risk accuracy. To meet the most frequent preference, counselors should consider providing a time frame of reference (eg, risk in the next 10 years) in a numerical format, in addition to lifetime risk.

KW - risk communication

KW - breast cancer

KW - genetic counseling

KW - patient preference

KW - understanding

KW - risk accuracy

KW - VISUAL AIDS

KW - INFORMATION

KW - PREFERENCES

KW - COMPREHENSION

KW - NUMERACY

KW - BENEFITS

KW - IMPACT

KW - PROBABILITY

KW - PERCEPTION

U2 - 10.2147/PPA.S232941

DO - 10.2147/PPA.S232941

M3 - Article

C2 - 32109999

VL - 14

SP - 333

EP - 342

JO - Patient Preference and Adherence

JF - Patient Preference and Adherence

SN - 1177-889X

ER -

ID: 119775277