What do men understand about lifetime risk following genetic testing? The effect of context and numeracy.

OBJECTIVE Genetic testing for gene mutations associated with specific cancers provides an opportunity for early detection, surveillance, and intervention (Smith, Cokkinides, & Brawley, 2008). Lifetime risk estimates provided by genetic testing refer to the risk of developing a specific disease within one's lifetime, and evidence suggests that this is important for the medical choices people make, as well as their future family and financial plans. The present studies tested whether adult men understand the lifetime risks of prostate cancer informed by genetic testing. METHOD In 2 experiments, adult men were asked to interpret the lifetime risk information provided in statements about risks of prostate cancer. Statement format was manipulated such that the most appropriate interpretation of risk statements referred to an absolute risk of cancer in experiment 1 and a relative risk in experiment 2. RESULTS Experiment 1 revealed that few men correctly interpreted the lifetime risks of cancer when these refer to an absolute risk of cancer, and numeracy levels positively predicted correct responding. The proportion of correct responses was greatly improved in experiment 2 when the most appropriate interpretation of risk statements referred instead to a relative rather than an absolute risk, and numeracy levels were less involved. CONCLUSION Understanding of lifetime risk information is often poor because individuals incorrectly believe that these refer to relative rather than absolute risks of cancer.

[1]  P. Harper,et al.  What do we mean by genetic testing? , 1997, Journal of medical genetics.

[2]  Y. Hanoch,et al.  Presentation Format Affects Comprehension and Risk Assessment: The Case of Prenatal Screening , 2009, Journal of health communication.

[3]  J. Weitzel,et al.  Concerns of women presenting to a comprehensive cancer centre for genetic cancer risk assessment , 2002, Journal of medical genetics.

[4]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2010 , 2010, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[5]  J. Bensing,et al.  Risk communication in completed series of breast cancer genetic counseling visits , 2006, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  Jeffrey R. Harris,et al.  Prostate cancer screening and informed decision-making: provider and patient perspectives , 2011, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[7]  K. Offit Genomic profiles for disease risk: predictive or premature? , 2008, JAMA.

[8]  D. Saslow,et al.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2011 , 2011, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[9]  Charles J. Brainerd,et al.  The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making , 2007 .

[10]  Yaniv Hanoch,et al.  Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results? , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[11]  Ellen Peters,et al.  Understanding the Role of Numeracy in Health: Proposed Theoretical Framework and Practical Insights , 2009, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[12]  Janet Shibley Hyde,et al.  Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  David B. Portnoy,et al.  The role of numeracy on client knowledge in BRCA genetic counseling. , 2010, Patient education and counseling.

[14]  D. Bowen,et al.  Communicating Genetic and Genomic Information: Health Literacy and Numeracy Considerations , 2010, Public Health Genomics.

[15]  E. Giovannucci,et al.  Smoking and aggressive prostate cancer: a review of the epidemiologic evidence , 2009, Cancer Causes & Control.

[16]  Brenda Wilson,et al.  A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

[17]  D. Asch,et al.  Life insurance and breast cancer risk assessment: Adverse selection, genetic testing decisions, and discrimination , 2003, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[18]  M. Daly The Impact of Social Roles on the Experience of Men in BRCA1/2 Families: Implications for Counseling , 2009, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[19]  B. Rimer,et al.  General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[20]  O. Brawley,et al.  Cancer Screening in the United States, 2008: A Review of Current American Cancer Society Guidelines and Cancer Screening Issues , 2008, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.