Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 409–417 | Cite as

Risky Communication: Pitfalls in Counseling About Risk, and How to Avoid Them

  • K. O’DohertyEmail author
  • G. K. Suthers
Professional Development Paper

A genetic counselor is often faced with the difficult task of conveying a set of complex and highly abstract factors associated with the client's risk of developing a familial disorder. The client is faced with the even more difficult task of making significant health-related decisions about an event which may or may not eventuate. Although there is a large corpus of research on this topic, much of the knowledge on risk communication is difficult to apply in a practical context. In this paper we draw together some insights on risk communication and decision-making under conditions of uncertainty, and apply them directly to the problem of communicating familial cancer risk. In particular, we focus on the distinction between individual risk and observed frequencies of adverse events, various framing effects, and contextualizing risk communication. We draw attention to some of the potential pitfalls in counseling about risk and offer avenues for circumventing them.

KEY WORDS:

Genetic counseling risk familial cancer risk communication 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Debbie Trott, Jacquie Armstrong, Sally Russell, Vanessa Huntley, Nicola Poplawski, and Matthew Welsh for their support, insight, and suggestions. We also acknowledge the valuable critiques provided by two anonymous reviewers.

REFERENCES

  1. Bernstein, P. L. (1996). Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Barratt, A., Wyer, P. C., Hatala, R., McGinn, T., Dans, A. L., Keitz, S., Moyer, V., & Guyatt, G. (2004). Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. CMAJ, 171(4), 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Claus, E. B. (2001). Risk models used to counsel women for breast and ovarian cancer: A guide for clinicians. Familial Can, 1, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., & Mulley, A. (2002). Explaining risks: Turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. Br Med J, 324, 827–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Facione, N. C. (2002). Perceived risk of breast cancer: influence of heuristic thinking. Can Prac, 10(5), 256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fahey, T., Griffiths, S., Peters, T. J., Milne, R., & Sackett, D. (1995). Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. Br Med J, 311(7012), 1056–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Reckoning with risk: Learning to live with uncertainty. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Gigerenzer, G., & Edwards, A. (2003). Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Br Med J, 327, 741–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hallowell, N. (1998). ‘You don't want to lose your ovaries because you think ‘I might become a man.’ ‘Women's perceptions of prophylactic surgery as a cancer risk management option. Psycho-Oncology, 7, 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallowell, N. (2000). A qualitative study of the information needs of high-risk women undergoing prophylactic oophorectomy. Psycho-Oncology, 9, 486–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hallowell, N., Statham, H., Murton, F., Green, J., & Richards, M. (1997). “Talking about chance”: The presentation of risk information during genetic counseling for breast and ovarian cancer. J Gen Counsel, 6(3), 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamm, R. M., & Smith, S. L. (1998). The accuracy of patients’ judgments of disease probability and test sensitivity and specificity. J Fam Prac, 47(1), 44–53.Google Scholar
  13. Hodge, S. E. (1998). A simple, unified approach to bayesian risk calculations. J Gen Counsel, 7(3), 235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, B. B. (2004). Risk comparisons, conflict, and risk acceptability claims. Risk Anal, 24(1), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, S. K., Frisch, D., Yurak, T. J., & Kim, E. (1998). Choices and opportunities: Another effect of framing on decisions. J Behav Dec Mak, 11, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol, 39(4), 342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kreuter, M. W. (1999). Dealing with competing and conflicting risks in cancer communication. J Nat Can Inst Mono, 25, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, K. M. (1997). Communicating uncertainty: framing effects on responses to vague probabilities. Organ Behav Hum Dec Proc, 71(1), 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leventhal, H., Kelly, K., & Leventhal, E. A. (1999). Population risk, actual risk, perceived risk, and cancer control: A discussion. J Nat Can Inst Mono, 25, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lippman-Hand, A., & Fraser, F. C. (1979). Genetic counseling—The postcounseling period: I. Parents’ perceptions of uncertainty. Am J Med Genet, 4(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lupton, D. (Ed.). (1999). Risk and sociocultural theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malenka, D. J., Baron, J. A., Johansen, S., Wahrenberger, J., & Ross, J. (1993). The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Int Med, 8(10), 543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marteau, T. M. (1999). Communicating genetic risk information. Br Med Bull, 55(2), 414–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazur, D. J., & Merz, J. F. (1994). Patients’ interpretations of verbal expressions of probability: Implications for securing informed consent to medical interventions. Behav Sci Law, 12, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meiser, B., Butow, P., Barratt, A., Suthers, G., Smith, M., Colley, A., et al. (2000). Attitudes to genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in women at increased risk developing hereditary breast cancer. J Med Genet, 37, 472–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Doherty, K. (2005). Risk communication in familial cancer: The discursive management of uncertainty in genetic counseling. Unpublished PhD, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.Google Scholar
  29. O’Doherty, K. (2006). Risk communication in genetic counseling: A discursive approach to probability. Theor Psychol, 16(2), 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parry, C. (2003). Embracing uncertainty: An exploration of the experiences of childhood cancer survivors. Qual Health Res, 13(1), 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parsons, E., & Atkinson, P. (1992). Lay constructions of genetic risk. Sociol Health Illness, 14(4), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothman, A. J., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (1999). Treating people with information: an analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. J Nat Can Inst Mono, 25, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skolbekken, J.-A. (1998). Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs. Br Med J, 316(7149), 1956–1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slaytor, E. K., & Ward, J. E. (1998). How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. Br Med J, 317, 263–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Smits, T., & Hoorens, V. (2005). How probable is probably ? It depends on whom you’re talking about. J Behav Dec Mak, 18, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stoddard, J. E., & Fern, E. F. (2002). Buying group choice: The effect of individual group member's prior decision frame. Psychol Mark, 19 (1), 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Theil, M. (2002). The role of translations of verbal into numerical probability expressions: A meta-analysis. J Risk Res, 5(2), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trevena, L., Davey, H., Barratt, A., Butow, P., & Caldwell, P. (2006). A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Evaluat Clin Prac, 12(1), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Viscusi, W. K., & Hakes, J. K. (2003). Risk ratings that do not measure probabilities. J Risk Res, 6(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Watson, M., Lloyd, S., Davidson, J., Meyer, L., Eeles, R., Ebbs, S., et al. (1999). The impact of genetic counseling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Can, 79(5/6), 868–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weinstein, N. D. (1999). What does it mean to understand a Risk? Evaluating Risk Comprehension. J Nat Can Inst Mono, 25, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weinstein, N., Atwood, K., Puleo, E., Fletcher, R., & Colditz, G. (2004). Colon cancer: Risk perceptions and risk communication. J Health Commun, 9(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Welkenhuysen, M., Evers-Kiebooms, G., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2001). The language of uncertainty in genetic communication: Framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Educ Counsel, 43, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wieand, S. H. (2003). Is relative risk reduction a useful measure for patients of families who must choose a method of treatment? J Clin Oncol, 21(23), 4263–4264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wood, F., Prior, L., & Gray, J. (2003). Translations of risk: Decision making in a cancer genetics service. Health, Risk Soc, 5(2), 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yates, F. J. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Familial Cancer Unit, SA Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Genetic MedicineChildren’s Youth and Women’s Health ServiceNorth AdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PaediatricsUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations