Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSmit, A K
dc.contributor.authorKeogh, L A
dc.contributor.authorHersch, J
dc.contributor.authorNewson, A.J.
dc.contributor.authorButow, PN
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, G
dc.contributor.authorCust, A E
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-15
dc.date.available2016-02-15
dc.date.issued2016-02-06
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2123/14361
dc.descriptionCitation: Smit, A.K., Keogh, L.A., Hersch, J., Newson, A.J., Butow, P., Williams, G., Cust, A.E. (2015) “Preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information to the general public: a focus group study.” Health Expectations, published online: 1 Sep 2015. doi: 10.1111/hex.12406.en_AU
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.en_AU
dc.description.sponsorshipfunded by a Sydney Catalyst Pilot and Seed Funding grant. AE Cust is supported by a NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (APP1063593) and a Cancer Institute NSW Early Career Fellowship (10ECF206).en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.subjectcommunicationen_AU
dc.subjectgeneticen_AU
dc.subjectmelanomaen_AU
dc.subjectgenomicen_AU
dc.subjectpublic preferencesen_AU
dc.subjectrisken_AU
dc.titlePublic preferences for communicating personal genomic risk information to the general public: a focus group studyen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.