Advertisement

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Genetic Counseling on Risk Perception Accuracy

  • Chris M. R. SmerecnikEmail author
  • Ilse Mesters
  • Eline Verweij
  • Nanne K. de Vries
  • Hein de Vries
Original Research

Abstract

This review presents an overview of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy in papers published between January 2000 and February 2007. The results suggest that genetic counseling may have a positive impact on risk perception accuracy, though some studies observed no impact at all, or only for low-risk participants. Several implications for future research can be deduced. First, future researchers should link risk perception changes to objective risk estimates, define risk perception accuracy as the correct counseled risk estimate, and report both the proportion of individuals who correctly estimate their risk and the average overestimation of the risk. Second, as the descriptions of the counseling sessions were generally poor, future research should include more detailed description of these sessions and link their content to risk perception outcomes to allow interpretation of the results. Finally, the effect of genetic counseling should be examined for a wider variety of hereditary conditions. Genetic counselors should provide the necessary context in which counselees can understand risk information, use both verbal and numerical risk estimates to communicate personal risk information, and use visual aids when communicating numerical risk information.

Keywords

Genetic counseling Risk perception Systematic review 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by Maastricht University and performed at the School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri). Caphri participates in the Netherlands School of Primary Care Research (CaRe), recognized by the Royal Dutch Academy of Science (KNAW) in 1995.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Berry, D. C., Raynor, T., Knapp, P., & Bersellini, E. (2004). Over the counter medicines and the need for immediate action: A further evaluation of European Commision recommended wordings for communicating risks. Patient Education and Counseling, 53, 129–134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00111-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biesecker, B. B. (2001). Goals of genetic counseling. Clinical Genetics, 60, 323–330. doi: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0004.2001.600501.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjorvatn, C., Eide, G. E., Hanestad, B. R., Oyen, N., Havik, O. E., Carlsson, A., et al. (2007). Risk perception, worry and satisfaction related to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12, 211–222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-006-9061-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowen, D. J., Burke, W., Culver, J. O., Press, N., & Crystal, S. (2006). Effects of counseling Ashkenazi Jewish women about breast cancer risk. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 45–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.1.45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, W., Culver, J. O., Bowen, D., Lowry, D., Durfy, S., McTiernan, A., et al. (2000). Genetic counseling for women with an intermediate family history of breast cancer. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 90, 361–368. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8628(20000228)90:5<361::AID-AJMG4>3.0.CO;2-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butow, P. N., Lobb, E. A., Meiser, B., Barratt, A., & Tucker, K. M. (2003). Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review. The Medical Journal of Australia, 178, 77–81.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Chua, H. F., Yates, J. F., & Priti, S. (2006). Risk avoidance: Graphs versus numbers. Memory & Cognition, 34, 399–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clementi, M., Di Gianantonio, E., Ponchia, R., Petrella, M., Andrisani, A., & Tenconi, R. (2006). Pregnancy outcome after genetic counselling for prenatal diagnosis of unexpected chromosomal anomaly. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 128, 77–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.01.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Codori, A. M., Waldeck, T., Petersen, G. M., Miglioretti, D., Trimbath, J. D., & Tillery, M. A. (2005). Genetic counseling outcomes: perceived risk and distress after counseling for hereditary colorectal cancer. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14, 119–132. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-4062-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, F. S., Green, E. D., Guttmacher, A. E., & Guyer, M. S. (2003). A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature, 422, 835–847. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, V., Halliday, J., Warren, R., & Williamson, R. (2000). Cancer worries, risk perceptions and associations with interest in DNA testing and clinic satisfaction in a familial colorectal cancer clinic. Clinical Genetics, 58, 460–468. doi: https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.580606.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cull, A., Fry, A., Rush, R., & Steel, C. M. (2001). Cancer risk perceptions and distress among women attending a familial ovarian cancer clinic. British Journal of Cancer, 84, 594–599. doi: https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erev, I., & Cohen, B. L. (1990). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 1–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90002-Q.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, D. G. R., Blair, V., Greenhalgh, R., Hopwood, P., & Howell, A. (1994). The impact of genetic-counseling on risk perception in women with a family history of breast-cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 70, 934–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gurmankin, A. D., Baron, J., & Armstrong, K. (2004a). The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Medical Decision Making, 24, 265–271. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X04265482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gurmankin, A. D., Baron, J., & Armstrong, K. (2004b). Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: Exploring the gap. Risk Analysis, 24, 1337–1347. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00530.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.).(2006). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  18. Hopwood, P., Howell, A., Lalloo, F., & Evans, G. (2003). Do women understand the odds? Risk perceptions and recall of risk information in women with a family history of breast cancer. Community Genetics, 6, 214–223. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000079383.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Hopwood, P., Shenton, A., Lalloo, F., Evans, D. G. R., & Howell, A. (2001). Risk perception and cancer worry: An exploratory study of the impact of genetic risk counselling in women with a family history of breast cancer. Journal of Medical Genetics, 38, 139–142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.38.2.139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hopwood, P., Wonderling, D., Watson, M., Cull, A., Douglas, F., Cole, T., et al. (2004). A randomised comparison of UK genetic risk counselling services for familial cancer: psychosocial outcomes. British Journal of Cancer, 91, 884–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huiart, L., Eisinger, F., Stoppa Lyonnet, D., Lasset, C., Nogues, C., Vennin, P., et al. (2002). Effects of genetic consultation on perception of a family risk of breast/ovarian cancer and determinants of inaccurate perception after the consultation. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55, 665–675. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00401-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Humphreys, P., & Berkeley, D. (1987). Representing risks: supporting genetic counseling. Birth Defects Original Article Series, 23, 227–250.Google Scholar
  23. Janz, N., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Julian Reynier, C., Chabal, F., Sobol, H., Aurran, Y., Nogues, C., Vennin, P., et al. (1995). Risk perception, anxiety and attitudes towards predictive testing alter cancer genetic consultations. American Journal of Human Genetics, 57, 1722–1722.Google Scholar
  25. Kaiser, A. S., Ferris, L. E., Katz, R., Pastuszak, A., Llewellyn Thomas, H., Johnson, J. A., et al. (2004). Psychological responses to prenatal NTS counseling and the uptake of invasive testing in women of advanced maternal age. Patient Education and Counseling, 54, 45–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00190-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kasparian, N. A., Wakefield, C. E., & Meiser, B. (2007). Assessment of psychological outcomes in genetic counseling research. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16, 693–712. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-007-9111-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly, K., Leventhal, H., Toppmeyer, D., Much, J., Dermody, J., Marvin, M., et al. (2003). Subjective and objective risks of carrying a BRCA 1/2 mutation in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12, 351–371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023905106360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kent, G., Howie, H., Fletcher, M., Newbury-Ecob, R., & Hosie, K. (2000). The relationship between perceived risk, thought intrusiveness and emotional well-being in women receiving counselling for breast cancer risk in a family history clinic. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5, 15–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1348/135910700168739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lerman, C., Croyle, R. T., Tercyak, K. P., & Hamann, H. (2002). Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 784–797. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.3.784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lidén, A., Berglund, G., Hansson, M. G., Rosenquist, R., Sjödén, P. O., & Nordin, K. (2003). Genetic counselling for cancer and risk perception. Acta Oncologica, 42, 726–734. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860310011023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lobb, E. A., Butow, P., Barratt, A., Meiser, B., Gaff, C., & Young, M. A. (2004). Communication and information-giving in high-risk breast cancer consultations: influence on patient outcomes. British Journal of Cancer, 90, 321–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lobb, E. A., Butow, P. N., Barratt, A., Meiser, B., Gaff, C., Young, M. A., et al. (2004). Communication and information-giving in high-risk breast cancer consultations: influence on patient outcomes. British Journal of Cancer, 90, 321–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meiser, B., Butow, P., Barratt, A., Gattas, M., Gaff, C., Haan, E., et al. (2001). Risk perceptions and knowledge of breast cancer genetics in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer. Psychology & Health, 16, 297–311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440108405508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meiser, B., Butow, P. N., Barratt, A. L., Schnieden, V., Gattas, M., Kirk, J., et al. (2001). Long-term outcomes of genetic counseling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer. Patient Education and Counseling, 44, 215–225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00191-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meiser, B., & Halliday, J. L. (2002). What is the impact of genetic counseling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 1463–1470. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00133-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nordin, K., Lidén, A., Hansson, M., Rosenquist, R., & Berglund, G. (2002). Coping style, psychological distress, risk perception, and satisfaction in subjects attending genetic counselling for hereditary cancer. Journal of Medical Genetics, 39, 689–694. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.39.9.689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Palmero, E. I., Caleffi, M., Vargas, F. R., Rocha, J. C. C., Giugliani, R., Kalakun, L., et al. (2004). Genetic counseling and cancer risk perception in Brazilian patients at-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 884–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parrot, R., Silk, K., Dorgan, K., Condit, C., & Harris, T. (2005). Risk comprehension and judgements of statisical evidentiary appeals. When a picture is not worth a thousand words. Human Communication Research, 31, 423–452.Google Scholar
  39. Pieterse, A. H., van Dulmen, S., van Dijk, S., Bensing, J. M., & Ausems, M. G. E. M. (2006). Risk communication in completed series of breast cancer genetic counseling visits. Genetics in Medicine, 8, 688–696. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.gim.0000245579.79093.86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pilnick, A., & Dingwall, R. (2001). Research directions in genetic counselling: a review of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling, 44, 95–105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00181-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Resta, R., Biesecker, B., Bennet, R., Blum, S., Estabrooks Hahn, S., Strecker, M., et al. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: Notional Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15, 77–83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rimes, K. A., Salkovkis, P. M., Jones, L., & Lucassen, A. M. (2006). Applying cognitive-behavioral models of health anxiety in a cancer genetics service. Health Psychology, 25, 171–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.2.171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In T. Cacioppo, & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 153–176). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rothemund, Y., Paepke, S., & Flor, H. (2001). Perception of risk, anxiety, and health behaviors in women at high risk for breast cancer. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8, 230–239. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327558IJBM0803_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schapira, M. M., Nattinger, A. B., & McHorney, C. A. (2001). Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Medical Decision Making, 21, 459–467. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/02729890122062811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shiloh, S., Gerad, L., & Goldman, B. (2006). The facilitating role of information provided in genetic counseling for counselees’ decisions. Genetics in Medicine, 8, 116–124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.gim.0000196823.50502.a4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Teigen, K. H., & Brun, W. (2003). Verbal probabilities: A question of frame? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 53–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tercyak, K. P., Johnson, S. B., Roberts, S. F., & Cruz, A. C. (2001). Psychological response to prenatal genetic counseling and amniocentesis. Patient Education and Counseling, 43, 73–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00146-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Timmermans, D., Molewijk, B., Stiggelhout, A., & Kievit, J. (2004). Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Education and Counseling, 54, 255–263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00238-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trepanier, A., Ahrens, M., McKinnon, W., Peters, J., Stopfer, J., Grumet, S., et al. (2004). Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 83–114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOGC.0000018821.48330.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Dijk, S., Otten, W., Zoeteweij, M. W., Timmermans, D. R., van Asperen, C. J., Breuning, M. H., et al. (2003). Genetic counselling and the intention to undergo prophylactic mastectomy: effects of a breast cancer risk assessment. British Journal of Cancer, 88, 1675–1681. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang, C., Gonzalez, R., & Merajver, S. D. (2004). Assessment of genetic testing and related counseling services: current research and future directions. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1427–1442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00337-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Warner, E., Carroll, J. C., Heisey, R. E., Goel, V., Meschino, W. S., Lickley, H. L., et al. (2003). Educating women about breast cancer. An intervention for women with a family history of breast cancer. Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien, 49, 56–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 59, 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://doi.org/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris M. R. Smerecnik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ilse Mesters
    • 1
  • Eline Verweij
    • 1
  • Nanne K. de Vries
    • 1
  • Hein de Vries
    • 1
  1. 1.School for Public Health and Primary Care (Caphri), Department of Health Education and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life ScienceMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations