Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 228–234 | Cite as

Re-conceptualizing Risk in Genetic Counseling: Implications for Clinical Practice

  • Jehannine C. AustinEmail author
Theory Based Paper

Abstract

Risk communication is an important component of genetic counseling. However, many authors have noted that after genetic counseling, subjective risk frequently does not match the objective risk provided by the counselor. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that the risk communication process was not “effective”. There has been much discussion about how this problem can be better addressed, such that our clients recall numeric risks more accurately after genetic counseling. This article draws on the risk and probability literature from other fields (including psychology, economics, philosophy and climate change) to deconstruct the concepts of “risk” and risk perception to attempt to expand upon and develop thought and discussion about and investigation of the risk communication process in genetic counseling.

Keywords

Risk assessment Risk perception Risk estimation Risk communication Probability Clinical genetics Decision making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This concept for this manuscript was developed as a result of interactions with scholars from a wide variety of disciplines at the UBC Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies—the author thanks the institute’s 2009–2010 cohort of Early Career Scholars. Sincere thanks to Victoria Lemieux and Susan Creighton for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript. JA was supported by the Provincial Health Services Authority of BC, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

References

  1. Adams, J. (2003). Risk and morality: Three framing devices. In R. V. Ericson & W. Dobson (Eds.), Risk and morality (pp. 86–103). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bottorff, J. L., Ratner, P. A., Johnson, J. L., Lovato, C. Y., & Joab, S. A. (1998). Communicating cancer risk information: the challenges of uncertainty. Patient Educaction and Counseling, 33, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crowson, C. P., Therneau, T. M., Matteson, E. L., & Gabriel, S. E. (2007). Primer: demystifying risk—understanding and communicating medical risks. Nature Clinical Practice, 3(3), 181–187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards, A., & Elwyn, G. (1999). How should effectiveness of risk communication to aid patients’ decisions be judged? A review of the literature. Medical Decision Making, 19, 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, A., Evans, R., Dundon, J., Haigh, S., Hood, K., & Elwyn, G. J. (2006). Personalized risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 18(4), CD001865.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, A., Gray, J., Clarke, A., Dundon, J., Elwyn, G., Gaff, C., et al. (2008). Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: systematic review. Patient Educaction and Counseling, 71, 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Etchegary, H., & Perrier, C. (2007). Information processing in the context of genetic risk: implications for genetic-risk communication. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16(4), 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finkel, A. M. (2008). Perceiving others’ perceptions of risk: still a task for Sisyphus. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1128, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hallowell, N., Green, J. M., Statham, H., Murton, F., & Richards, M. P. M. (1997). Recall of numerical risk estimates and counsellees’ perceptions of the importance of risk information following genetic counselling for breast and ovarian cancer. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 2(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallowell, N., Statham, H., & Murton, F. (1998). Women’s understanding of their risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer before and after genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 7(4), 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawson, K. L. (2001). Contemplating selective reproduction: the subjective appraisal of parenting a child with a disability. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 19, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meiser, B., & Halliday, J. L. (2002). What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 1463–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Michie, S., Lester, K., Pinto, J., & Marteau, T. M. (2005). Communicating risk information in genetic counseling: an observational study. Health Education and Behavior, 32(5), 589–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Patt, A. G., & Schrag, D. P. (2003). Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change, 61, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rantala, J., Platten, U., Lindgren, G., Nilsson, B., Arver, B., Lindblom, A., et al. (2009). Risk perception after genetic counseling in patients with increased risk of cancer. Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practive, 73(1), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Resta, R. G. (2006). Defining and redefining the scope and goals of genetic counseling. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 142(4), 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Robertson, A. (2000). Embodying risk, embodying political rationality: women’s accounts of risks for breast cancer. Health, Risk and Society, 2(2), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Senay, I., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2009). Anchoring and adjustment bias in communication of disease risk. Medical Decision Making, 29(2), 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shiloh, S. (2006). Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(5), 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shiloh, S., & Sagi, M. (1989). Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence risks. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 33(1), 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shiloh, S., & Saxe, L. (1989). Perception of risk in genetic counseling. Psychology and Health, 3(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sivell, S., Elwyn, G., Gaff, C. L., Clarke, A. J., Iredale, R., Shaw, C., et al. (2008). How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted in clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: a systematic review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 17(1), 30–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smerecnik, C. M. R., Mesters, I., Verweij, E., de Vries, N. K., & de Vries, H. (2009). A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Walter, F. M., & Emery, J. (2006). Perceptions of family history across common diseases: a qualitative study in primary care. Family Practice, 23(4), 472–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Walter, F. M., Emery, J., Braithwaite, D., & Marteau, T. M. (2004). Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(6), 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang, C., Gonzalez, R., & Merajver, S. A. (2004). Assessment of genetic testing and related counseling services: current research and future directions. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1427–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weber, E. U. (1994). From subjective probabilities to decision weights: the effect of asymmetric loss functions on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 228–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wertz, D. C., Sorenson, J. R., & Hereen, T. C. (1986). Clients’ interpretations of risks provided in genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics, 39, 253–264.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Windschitl, P. D., & Weber, E. U. (1999). The interpretation of “likely” depends on context, but “70%” is 70%—right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Psychiatry and Medical GeneticsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations