Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.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.Focus groups, transcribed and analysed thematically.Thirty-four participants from the public.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.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.These public preferences for communication strategies for genomic risk information will help to guide translation of genome-based knowledge into improved population health.

SUBMITTER: Smit AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5139046 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Smit Amelia K AK Keogh Louise A LA Hersch Jolyn J Newson Ainsley J AJ Butow Phyllis P Williams Gabrielle G Cust Anne E AE

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20150901 6

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>Focus groups, transcribed and analysed thema ...[more]

PMID: 26332492

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Head and Neck cancer (HNC) is characterized by significant mortality and morbidity. Treatment is often invasive and interferes with vital functions, resulting in a delicate balance between survival benefit and deterioration in quality of life (QoL). Therefore, including prognostic information during patient counseling can be of great importance. The first aim of this study was to explore HNC patients' preferences for receiving prognostic information: both qualitative (general terms like "curable cancer"), and quantitative information (numbers, percentages). The second aim of this study was to explore patients' views on "OncologIQ", a prognostic model developed to estimate overall survival in newly diagnosed HNC patients. METHODS:We conducted a single center qualitative study by organizing five focus groups with HNC patients (n?=?21) and their caregivers (n?=?19), categorized in: 1) small laryngeal carcinomas treated with radiotherapy or laser, 2) extensive oral cavity procedures, 3) total laryngectomy, 4) chemoradiation, 5) other treatments. The patients' perspective was the main focus. The interview guide consisted of two main topics: life-expectancy and the prognostic model OncologIQ. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed and coded. Themes were derived using content analysis. RESULTS:While all patients considered it somewhat to very important to receive information about their life-expectancy, only some of them wanted to receive quantitative information. Disclosing qualitative prognostic information like "the cancer is curable" would give enough reassurance for most patients. Overall, patients thought life-expectancy should not be discussed shortly after cancer diagnosis disclosure, as a certain time is needed to process the first shock. They had a stronger preference for receiving prognostic information in case of a poor prognosis. Prognostic information should also include information on the expected QoL. The pie chart was the most preferred chart for discussing survival rates. CONCLUSIONS:The participants found it important to receive information on their life-expectancy. While most patients were enough reassured by qualitative prognostic information, some wanted to receive quantitative information like OncologIQs' estimates. A tailor-made approach is necessary to provide customized prognostic information. A clinical practice guideline was developed to support professionals in sharing prognostic information, aiming to improve shared decision making and patient-centered care.

Project description:BackgroundUncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the impact of different uncertainty descriptions regarding the evidence for a treatment effect in a written research summary for the public.MethodsWe developed 8 versions of a research summary on a fictitious drug for tinnitus with varying degrees (Q1), sources (Q2), and magnitudes of uncertainty (Q3). We recruited 2099 members of the German public from a web-based research panel. Of these, 1727 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomly presented with one of these research summaries. Randomization was conducted by using a centralized computer with a random number generator. Web-based recruitment and data collection were fully automated. Participants were not aware of the purpose of the study and alternative presentations. We measured the following outcomes: perception of the treatment effectiveness (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence, text quality, and intended decision. The outcomes were self-assessed.ResultsFor the primary outcome, we did not find a global effect for Q1 and Q2 (P=.25 and P=.73), but we found a global effect for Q3 (P=.048). Pairwise comparisons showed a weaker perception of treatment effectiveness for the research summary with 3 sources of uncertainty compared to the version with 2 sources of uncertainty (P=.04). Specifically, the proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that perceived the drug as possibly beneficial was 9% lower than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (92/195, 47.2% vs 111/197, 56.3%, respectively). The proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that considered the drug to be of unclear benefit was 8% higher than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (72/195, 36.9% vs 57/197, 28.9%, respectively). However, there was no significant difference compared to the version with 1 source of uncertainty (P=.31). We did not find any meaningful differences between the research summaries for the secondary outcomes.ConclusionsCommunicating even a large magnitude of uncertainty for a treatment effect had little impact on the perceived effectiveness. Efforts to improve public understanding of research are needed to improve the understanding of evidence-based health information.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/13425.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate public perceptions of overdiagnosis and overtreatment in low-risk thyroid cancer and explore opinions regarding the proposed strategy to change the terminology of low-risk cancers. DESIGN:Qualitative study using focus groups that included a guided group discussion and presentation explaining thyroid cancer, overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and proposed communication strategies. Transcripts were analysed thematically. SETTING:Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS:Forty-seven men and women of various ages from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds with no personal history of thyroid cancer. RESULTS:Participants had low pre-existing general awareness of concepts of overdiagnosis and overtreatment and expressed concern regarding this new information in relation to thyroid cancer. Overall, participants understood why the strategy to change the terminology was being proposed and could see potential benefits including reducing the negative psychological impact and stigma associated with the term 'cancer'; however, many still had reservations about the strategy. The majority of the concerns were around their worry about the risk of further disease progression and that changing the terminology may create confusion and cause patients not to take the diagnosis and its associated managements seriously. Despite varied views towards the proposed strategy, there was a strong overarching desire for greater patient and public education around overdiagnosis and overtreatment in both thyroid cancer and cancer generally in order to complement any revised terminology and/or other mitigation strategies. CONCLUSIONS:We found a strong and apparently widely held desire for more information surrounding the topic of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Careful consideration of how to inform both the public and current patients about the implications of a change in terminology, including changes to patients' follow-up or treatments, would be needed if such a change were to go ahead.

Project description:Background: The Ostrobothnia Depression Programme (ODP) in Finland was intended to implement two evidence-based brief psychotherapy interventions, namely motivational interview and behavioural activation, in several regional psychiatric teams. A simultaneous effectiveness study was conducted. Considerable tension was encountered between these two arms, causing resistance to change. We conducted a qualitative case study to better understand this tension and to discuss how managerial and executive practices may ensure the successful running of a hybrid design programme.Methods: We conducted focus group interviews to evaluate the phases of preparation and practical execution of the ODP from the perspectives of management and the programme executives. To gather the data, we applied the revised Socratic approach for health technology assessment and focus group interviews. We analysed the data deductively according to the Normalization Process Theory.Results: We identified two main critical issues: (1) The ODP programme plan ignored the team leaders' crucial role in influencing the implementation climate and mobilizing organizational strategies. The ODP had a simplistic top-down design with minimal and delayed collaboration with its target groups in the preparation phase. (2) Incongruence occurred between what the project group had explicitly communicated about being the spearhead of the ODP and what they then actually enacted. These two issues caused tension between the implementation efforts and the effectiveness study as well as resistance to change among the staff.Conclusion: Early, open collaboration with all prospective stakeholders towards a shared understanding about the programme is the first action the programme administrators should take. Agreement on goals and the means to achieve them would lower tension between the two arms of a hybrid design programme, thereby reducing resistance to change. Congruence between the goals communicated and the actual managerial and executive actions is of paramount importance in getting the programme recipients on board.

Project description:BackgroundRight from the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic the general public faced the challenge to find reliable and understandable information in the overwhelming flood of information. To enhance informed decision-making, evidence-based information should be provided. Aim was to explore the general public's information needs and preferences on COVID-19 as well as the barriers to accessing evidence-based information.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study. Nine hundred twenty-seven panel members were invited to an online survey (12/2020-02/2021). The HeReCa-online-panel is installed at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg to assess regularly the general public's view on health issues in five regions in Germany. The survey was set up in LimeSurvey, with nine items, multiple-choice and open-ended questions that allowed to gather qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and a content analysis was carried out to categorise the qualitative data.ResultsSix hundred thirty-six panel members provided data; mean age 52 years, 56.2% female, and 64.9% with higher education qualifications. Asked about relevant topics related to COVID-19, most participants selected vaccination (63.8%), infection control (52%), and long-term effects (47.8%). The following 11 categories were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the topics of interest: vaccination, infection control, long-term effects, therapies, test methods, mental health, symptoms, structures for pandemic control, infrastructure in health care, research. Participants preferred traditional media (TV 70.6%; radio 58.5%; newspaper 32.7%) to social media, but also used the internet as sources of information, becoming aware of new information on websites (28.5%) or via email/newsletter (20.1%). The knowledge question (Which European country is most affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?) was correctly answered by 7.5% of participants. The Robert Koch Institute (93.7%) and the World Health Organization (78%) were well known, while other organisations providing health information were rarely known (< 10%). Barriers to accessing trustworthy information were lack of time (30.7%), little experience (23.1%), uncertainty about how to get access (22.2%), complexity and difficulties in understanding (23.9%), and a lack of target group orientation (15,3%).ConclusionsThere are extensive information needs regarding various aspects on COVID-19 among the general population. In addition, target-specific dissemination strategies are still needed to reach different groups.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets