Genomic research is transforming our understanding of the role of genes in health and disease. These advances, and their application to common diseases that affect large segments of the general population, suggest that researchers and practitioners in public health genomics will increasingly be called upon to translate genomic information to individuals with varying levels of health literacy and numeracy. This paper discusses the current state of research regarding public understanding of genetics and genomics, the influence of health literacy and numeracy on genetic communication, and behavioral responses to genetic and genomic information. The existing research suggests that members of the general public have some familiarity with genetic and genomic terms but have gaps in understanding of underlying concepts. Findings from the limited research base to date indicate that health literacy affects understanding of print and oral communications about genetic and genomic information. Numeracy is also likely to be an important predictor of being able to understand and apply this information, although little research has been conducted in this area to date. In addition, although some research has examined behavior change in response to the receipt of information about genetic risk for familial disorders and genomic susceptibility to common, complex diseases, the effects of health literacy and numeracy on these responses have not been examined. Potential areas in which additional research is needed are identified and practical suggestions for presenting numeric risk information are outlined. Public health genomics researchers and practitioners are uniquely positioned to engage in research that explores how different audiences react to and use genomic risk information.

Keywords:
Genetic communication, Genomics, Health behavior change, Health literacy, Numeracy
1.
National Human Genome Research Institute: Frequently asked questions about genetic and genomic science. 2009. Available at http://www.genome.gov/19016904.
2.
Pearson TA, Manolio TA: How to interpret a genome-wide association study. JAMA 2008;299:1335–1344.
3.
Wang G, Watts G: The role of genetics in the provision of essential public health services. Am J Public Health 2007;97:620–625.
4.
Hunter DJ, Khoury MJ, Drazen JM: Letting the genome out of the bottle – will we get our wish? New Engl J Med 2008;358:105–107.
5.
Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA (eds): Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, National Academies Press, 2004.
6.
Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C: The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington, National Center for Education Statistics. 2006. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483_1.pdf.
7.
Berkman N, Pignone MP, DeWalt D, Sheridan S (eds): Health Literacy: Impact on Health Outcomes. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004.
8.
Chen LS, Goodson P: Public health genomics knowledge and attitudes: a survey of public health educators in the United States. Genet Med 2007;9:496–503.
9.
Wang C, Bowen DJ, Kardia SL: Research and practice opportunities at the intersection of health education, health behavior, and genomics. Health Educ Behav 2005;32:686–701.
10.
Cohen LH, Fine BA, Pergament E: An assessment of ethnocultural beliefs regarding the cause of birth defects and genetic disorders. J Genet Couns 1998;50:15–29.
11.
Lafayette D, Abuelo D, Passero MA, Tantravahi U: Attitudes toward cystic fibrosis carrier and prenatal testing and utilization of carrier testing among relatives of individuals with cystic fibrosis. J Genet Couns 1998;8:17–36.
12.
Callanan NP, Bloom D, Sorenson JR, DeVellis BM, Cheuvront B: CF carrier testing: experience of relatives. J Genet Couns 1995;4:83–95.
13.
Parrott RL, Silk KJ, Condit C: Diversity in lay perceptions of the sources of human traits: genes, environments, and personal behaviors. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:1099–1109.
14.
Bates BR, Templeton A, Achter PJ, Harris TM, Condit CM: What does ‘a gene for heart disease’ mean? A focus group study of public understanding of genetic risk factors. Am J Med Genet A 2003;119A:156–161.
15.
Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, Marteau TM: Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic disease: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:583–594.
16.
Lanie AD, Jayaratne TE, Sheldon JP, Kardia SL, Anderson ES, Feldbaum M, Petty EM: Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. J Genet Couns 2004;13:305–320.
17.
Mesters I, Ausems A, DeVries H: General public’s knowledge, interest and information needs related to genetic cancer: an exploratory study. Eur J Cancer Prev 2005;14:69–75.
18.
Molster C, Charles T, Samanek A, O’Leary P: Australian study on public knowledge of genetics and health. Public Health Genomics 2009;12:84–91.
19.
Smerecnik CM, Mesters I, de Vries NK, de Vries H: Educating the general public about multifactorial genetic disease: applying a theory-based framework to understand current public knowledge. Genet Med 2008;10:251–258.
20.
Condit C: How culture and science make race ‘genetic’: motives and strategies for discrete categorization of the continuous and heterogeneous. Lit Med 2007;26:240–268.
21.
Condit CM, Ofulue N, Sheedy M: Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:979–984.
22.
Rudd RE, Moyekens BA, Colton T: Health and literacy: a review of medical and public health literature; in Comings J, Garner B, Smith C (eds): Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1999, vol 1, pp 158–199.
23.
Johnson JD, Case DO, Andrews JE, Allard SL: Genomics – The perfect information-seeking research problem. J Health Commun 2005;10:323–329.
24.
Thompson HS, Whal E, Fatone A, Brown K, Kwate NO, Valdimarsdottir H: Enhancing the readability of materials describing genetic risk for breast cancer. Cancer Control 2004;11:245–253.
25.
Lillie SE, Brewer NT, O’Neill SC, Morrill E, Dees EC, Carey LA, Rimer B: Retention and use of breast cancer recurrence risk information from genomic tests: the role of health literacy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:249–255.
26.
Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, Mayeaux EJ, George RB, Murphy PW, Crouch MA: Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine: a shortened screening instrument. Fam Med 1993;25:391–395.
27.
Erby LH, Roter D, Larson S, Cho J: The rapid estimate of adult literacy in genetics (REAL-G): a means to assess literacy deficits in the context of genetics. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:174–181.
28.
Roter DL, Erby LH, Larson S, Ellington E: Assessing oral literacy demand in genetic counseling dialogue: preliminary test of a conceptual framework. Soc Sci Med 2007; 65:1442–1457.
29.
Goldbeck AL, Ahlers-Smith CR, Paschal AM: A definition and operational framework for health numeracy. Am J Prev Med 2005;29:375–376.
30.
Dehaene S: The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997.
31.
Reyna V, Brainerd C: Numeracy, ratio bias and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Individ Differ 2008;18:89–107.
32.
National Center for Education Statistics: National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL): A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century. Washington, U.S. Department of Education. 2006. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006470.pdf.
33.
Ancker J, Kaufman D: Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:713–721.
34.
Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ: Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav 2007;31(suppl 1):47–56.
35.
Weinstein ND: What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999;25:15–20.
36.
Lipkus IM: Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007;27:696–713.
37.
Senay I, Kaphingst KA: Anchoring-and-adjustment bias in communication of disease risk. Med Decis Making 2009;29:193–201.
38.
Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, Dieckmann N: Numeracy skills and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:741–748.
39.
Kaphingst KA, McBride CM: Patient responses to genetic information: studies of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes identify issues for use of genetic testing in nephrology practice. Semin Nephrol 2010; 30:203–214.
40.
Botkin JR, Smith KR, Croyle RT, Baty BJ, Wylie JE, Dutson D, Chan A, Hamann HA, Lerman C, McDonald J, Venne V, Ward JH, Lyon E: Genetic testing for a BRCA1 mutation, prophylactic surgery and screening behavior in women 2 years post testing. Am J Med Genet 2003;118:201–209.
41.
Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Decruyenaere M, Denayer L, Boogaerts A, Philippe K, Legius E: Surveillance behavior and prophylactic surgery after predictive testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. Behav Med 2005;31:93–105.
42.
Lerman C, Hughes C, Croyle RT, Main D, Durham C, Snyder C, Bonney A, Lynch JF, Narod SA, Lynch HT: Prophylactic surgery decisions and 507 surveillance practices one year following BRCA1/2 testing. Prev Med 2000;31:75–80.
43.
Loader S, Shields CG, Rowley PT: Impact of genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. Genet Test 2004;8:1–12.
44.
Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, Isaacs C, Hughes C, Main D, Lerman C: Utilization of breast cancer screening in a clinically based sample of women after BRCA1/2 testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:1115–1118.
45.
Scheuer L, Kauff N, Robson M, Kelly B, Barakat R, Satagopan J, Ellis N, Hensley M, Boyd J, Borgen P, Norton L, Offit K: Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1260–1268.
46.
Schwartz MD, Kaufman E, Peshkin BN, Isaacs D, Hughes C, Demarco T, Finch C, Lerman C: Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and ovarian cancer screening following BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4034–4041.
47.
Collins V, Meiser B, Gaff C, St John DJ, Halliday J: Screening and preventive behaviors one year after predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2005;104:273–281.
48.
Hadley DW, Jenkins JF, Dimond E, de Carvalho M, Kirsch I, Palmer CG: Colon cancer screening practices after genetic counseling and testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:39–44.
49.
Hadley DW, Jenkins JF, Steinberg SM, Liewehr D, Moller S, Martin JC, Calzone KA, Soballe PW, Kirsch IR: Perceptions of cancer risks and predictors of colon and endometrial cancer screening in women undergoing genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:948–954.
50.
Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS: A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med 2008;10:19–32.
51.
Marteau T, Senior V, Humphries SE, Bobrow M, Cranston T, Crook MA, Day L, Fernandez M, Horne R, Iversen A, Jackson Z, Lynas J, Middleton-Price H, Savine R, Sikorski J, Watson M, Weinman J, Wierzbicki AS, Wray R: Genetic risk assessment for FH Trial Study Group: Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med Genet A 2004;128A:285–293.
52.
Carpenter MJ, Strange C, Jones Y, Dickson MR, Carter C, Moseley MA, Gilbert GE: Does genetic testing result in behavioral health change? Changes in smoking behavior following testing for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Ann Behav Med 2007;33:2–28.
53.
Marteau TM, Lerman C: Genetic risk and behavioural change. Br Med J 2001;322:1005–1006.
54.
Lerman CE, Schnoll RA, Munafò M: Genetics and smoking cessation improving outcomes in smokers at risk. Am J Prev Med 1997;33(suppl 6):398–405.
55.
Audrain J, Boyd NR, Roth J, Main D, Caporaso NF, Lerman C: Genetic susceptibility testing in smoking-cessation treatment: one-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Addict Behav 1997;22:741–751.
56.
McBride CM, Bepler G, Lipkus IM, Lyna P, Samsa G, Albright J, Santanu D, Rimer BK: Incorporating genetic susceptibility feedback into a smoking cessation program for African-American smokers with low income. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:521–528.
57.
Ito H, Keitaro M, Kenji W, Toshiko S, Hiroshi K, Katashi O, Kazuo T, Nobuyuki H: An intervention study of smoking cessation with feedback on genetic cancer susceptibility in Japan. Prev Med 2006;42:102–108.
58.
McClure JB: Are biomarkers a useful aid in smoking cessation? A review and analysis of the literature. Behav Med 2001;27:37–47.
59.
McClure JB, Westbrook E, Curry SJ, Wetter DW: Proactive, motivationally enhanced smoking cessation counseling among women with elevated cervical cancer risk. Nicotine Tob Res 2005;7:881–889.
60.
Lipkus IM, McBride CM, Bepler G, Pollak KI, Lyna P: Interpretation of genetic risk feedback among African American smokers with low socioeconomic status. Health Psychol 2004;23:178–188.
61.
McBride CM, Alford SH, Reid RJ, Larson EB, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC: Putting science over supposition in the arena of personalized genomics. Nat Genet 2008;40:939–941.
62.
Hay JL, Meischke HW, Bowen DJ, Mayer J, Shoveller J, Press N, Asgari M, Berwick M, Burke W: Anticipating dissemination of cancer genomics in public health: a theoretical approach to psychosocial and behavioral challenges. Ann Behav Med 2007;34:275–286.
63.
Estrada CA, Martin-Hryniewicz M, Peek BT, Collins C, Byrd JC: Literacy and numeracy skills and anticoagulant control. Am J Med Sci 2004;328:88–93.
64.
Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Armstrong K: The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making 2004;24:265–271.
65.
Hibbard JH, Peters E, Dixon A, Tusler M: Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information. Med Care Res Rev 2007;64:379–394.
66.
Lipkus IM, Peters E: Understanding the role of numeracy in health: proposed theoretical framework and practical insights. Health Educ Behav 2009;36:1065–1081.
67.
Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, Dieckmann N: Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:741–748.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.