Testing a best practices risk result format to communicate genetic risks
Patient Education and Counseling, ISSN: 0738-3991, Vol: 104, Issue: 5, Page: 936-943
2021
- 12Citations
- 30Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations12
- Citation Indexes12
- 12
- CrossRef10
- Captures30
- Readers30
- 30
Article Description
To investigate the effect of a genetic report format using risk communication "best-practices" on risk perceptions, in part to reduce risk overestimates. Adults (N = 470) from the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (CPMC) were randomized to a 2 × 2 experimental design to receive a hypothetical "personalized" genetic risk result for leukemia (relative risk = 1.5 or 2.5) through either the standard CPMC report (N = 232) or an enriched report informed by best practices (N = 238). A one-time, online survey assessed numeracy and risk perceptions including “feelings of risk” and a numerical estimate. Regardless of numeracy, participants who received the enriched report had fewer overestimates of their lifetime risk estimate (LRE; odds ratio = 0.19, p <.001) and lower feelings of risk on two of three measures (p <.001). Participants with higher numeracy scores had fewer overestimates of LRE (OR = 0.66, p <.001) and lower feelings of risk on two out of three measures (p ≤.01); the interaction between numeracy and report format was non-significant. The enriched report produced more accurate LRE and lower risk perceptions regardless of numeracy level, suggesting the enriched format was helpful to individuals irrespective of numeracy ability. Best practice elements in risk reports may help individuals form more accurate risk perceptions.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399120305589; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.021; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85094823985&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33131927; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0738399120305589; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.10.021
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know