Background: Genetic information, typically communicated in-person by genetic counselors, can be challenging to comprehend; delivery of this information online - as is becoming more common - has the potential of increasing these challenges. Methods: To address the impact of the mode of delivery of genomic risk information, 300 individuals were recruited from the general public and randomized to receive genomic risk information for type 2 diabetes mellitus in-person from a board-certified genetic counselor or online through the testing company's website. Results: Participants were asked to indicate their genomic risk and overall lifetime risk as reported on their test report as well as to interpret their genomic risk (increased, decreased, or same as population). For each question, 59% of participants correctly indicated their risk. Participants who received their results in-person were more likely than those who reviewed their results on-line to correctly interpret their genomic risk (72 vs. 47%, p = 0.0002) and report their actual genomic risk (69 vs. 49%, p = 0.002). Conclusions: The delivery of personal genomic risk through a trained health professional resulted in significantly higher comprehension. Therefore, if the online delivery of genomic test results is to become more widespread, further evaluation of this method of communication may be needed to ensure the effective presentation of results to promote comprehension.

Keywords:
Genomic risk, Risk communication, Risk comprehension, Risk perception
1.
Sangha KK, Dircks A, Langlois S: Assessment of the effectiveness of genetic counseling by telephone compared to a clinic visit. J Genet Couns 2003;12:171-184.
2.
Gattas MR, MacMillan JC, Meinecke I, Loane M, Wootton R: Telemedicine and clinical genetics: establishing a successful service. J Telemed Telecare 2001;7(suppl 2):68-70.
3.
Coelho JJ, Arnold A, Nayler J, Tischkowitz M, MacKay J: An assessment of the efficacy of cancer genetic counselling using real-time videoconferencing technology (telemedicine) compared to face-to-face consultations. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2257-2261.
4.
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.
5.
Saukko PM, Ellard S, Richards SH, Shepherd MH, Campbell JL: Patients' understanding of genetic susceptibility testing in mainstream medicine: qualitative study on thrombophilia. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:82.
6.
Madden M: Internet evolution: Internet penetration and impact. Pew internet and American life project. Data memo. 2006. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Internet-Penetration-and-Impact.aspx.
7.
Bernhardt JM, Lariscy RA, Parrott RL, Silk KJ, Felter EM: Perceived barriers to internet-based health communication on human genetics. J Health Commum 2002;7:325-340.
8.
Green MJ, Biesecker BB, McInerney AM, Mauger D, Fost N: An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet 2001;103:16-23.
9.
Green MJ, Peterson SK, Baker MW, Harper GR, Friedman LC, Rubinstein WS, Mauger DT: Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;292:442-452.
10.
Bernhardt JM, McClain J, Parrott RL: Online health communication about human genetics: perceptions and preferences of internet users. Cyberpsychol Behav 2004;7:728-733.
11.
Emmons KM, Wong M, Puleo E, Weinstein N, Fletcher R, Colditz G: Tailored computer-based cancer risk communication: correcting colorectal cancer risk perception. J Health Commun 2004;9:127-141.
12.
Leighton JW, Valverde K, Bernhardt BA: The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:11-21.
13.
Roter DL, Erby L, Larson S, Ellington L: Oral literacy demand of prenatal genetic counseling dialogue: predictors of learning. Patient Educ Couns 2009;75:392-397.
14.
Roter DL, Erby LH, Larson S, Ellington L: Assessing oral literacy demand in genetic counseling dialogue: preliminary test of a conceptual framework. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:1442-1457.
15.
McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA: The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31:89-103.
16.
Brewer NT, Tzeng JP, Lillie SE, Edwards AS, Peppercorn JM, Rimer BK: Health literacy and cancer risk perception: implications for genomic risk communication. Med Decis Making 2009;29:157-166.
17.
Lillie SE, Brewer NT, O'Neill SC, Morrill EF, Dees EC, Carey LA, Rimer BK: 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.
18.
Scott S, Prior L, Wood F, Gray J: Repositioning the patient: the implications of being ‘at risk'. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:1869-1879.
19.
Catz DS, Green NS, Tobin JN, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Kyler P, Umemoto A, Cernoch J, Brown R, Wolman F: Attitudes about genetics in underserved, culturally diverse populations. Community Genet 2005;8:161-172.
20.
Bates BR, Lynch JA, Bevan JL, Condit CM: Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:331-344.
21.
Brunk CG: Public knowledge, public trust: understanding the ‘knowledge deficit'. Community Genet 2006;9:178-183.
22.
Cunningham-Burley S: Public knowledge and public trust. Community Genet 2006;9:204-210.
23.
Bates BR: Public culture and public understanding of genetics: a focus group study. Public Underst Sci 2005;14:47-65.
24.
Haga SB, Barry WT, Mills R, Ginsburg GS, Svetkey L, Sullivan J, Willard HF: Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2013;17:327-335.
25.
Marteau TM, Weinman J: Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:1360-1368.
26.
Kaptein AA, van Korlaar IM, Cameron LD, Vossen CY, van der Meer FJ, Rosendaal FR: Using the common-sense model to predict risk perception and disease-related worry in individuals at increased risk for venous thrombosis. Health Psychol 2007;26:807-812.
27.
Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Horne R, Cameron LD, Buick D: The revised illness perception questionnaire (ipq-r). Psychol Health 2002;17:1-16.
28.
Cella D, Hughes C, Peterman A, Chang CH, Peshkin BN, Schwartz MD, Wenzel L, Lemke A, Marcus AC, Lerman C: A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the multidimensional impact of cancer risk assessment (micra) questionnaire. Health Psychol 2002;21:564-572.
29.
Arora NK, Hesse BW, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, Clayman ML, Croyle RT: Frustrated and confused: the American public rates its cancer-related information-seeking experiences. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:223-228.
30.
Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J: Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 1999;38:33-42.
31.
Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR: The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 1995;10:537-541.
32.
Jallinoja P, Aro AR: Knowledge about genes and heredity among Finns. N Genet Soc 1999;18:101-110.
33.
Morren M, Rijken M, Baanders AN, Bensing J: Perceived genetic knowledge, attitudes towards genetic testing, and the relationship between these among patients with a chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns 2007;65:197-204.
34.
Lautenbach DM, Christensen KD, Sparks JA, Green RC: Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2013;14:491-513.
35.
Hopwood P, Shenton A, Lalloo F, Evans DG, Howell A: Risk perception and cancer worry: an exploratory study of the impact of genetic risk counselling in women with a family history of breast cancer. J Med Genet 2001;38:139.
36.
Meiser B, Halliday JL: What is the impact of genetic counselling in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer? A meta-analytic review. Soc Sci Med 2002;54:1463-1470.
37.
Wasson K, Sanders TN, Hogan NS, Cherny S, Helzlsouer KJ: Primary care patients' views and decisions about, experience of and reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a longitudinal study. J Community Genet 2013;4:495-505.
38.
Jenkins J, Calzone KA, Dimond E, Liewehr DJ, Steinberg SM, Jourkiv O, Klein P, Soballe PW, Prindiville SA, Kirsch IR: Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling. Genet Med 2007;9:487-495.
39.
Darst B, Madlensky L, Schork N, Topol E, Bloss C: Perceptions of genetic counseling services in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Clin Genet 2013;84:335-339.
40.
Grimes DA, Snively GR: Patients' understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:910-914.
41.
Lipkus IM, Klein WM: Effects of communicating social comparison information on risk perceptions for colorectal cancer. J Health Commun 2006;11:391-407.
42.
Martin W, Lobchuk M: Breast cancer risk perception and surveillance: an integrative review. Online J Knowl Synth Nurs 2003;10:2.
43.
Nagle C, Hodges R, Wolfe R, Wallace EM: Reporting Down syndrome screening results: women's understanding of risk. Prenat Diagn 2009;29:234-239.
44.
van Vliet HA, Grimes DA, Popkin B, Smith U: Lay persons' understanding of the risk of Down's syndrome in genetic counselling. BJOG 2001;108:649-650.
45.
Sivell S, Elwyn G, Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Iredale R, Shaw C, Dundon J, Thornton H, Edwards A: How risk is perceived, constructed and interpreted by clients in clinical genetics, and the effects on decision making: systematic review. J Genet Couns 2008;17:30-63.
46.
Smerecnik CM, Mesters I, Verweij E, de Vries NK, de Vries H: A systematic review of the impact of genetic counseling on risk perception accuracy. J Genet Couns 2009;18:217-228.
47.
McGuire AL, Burke W: An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 2008;300:2669-2671.
48.
Ransohoff DF, Khoury MJ: Personal genomics: information can be harmful. Eur J Clin Invest 2010;40:64-68.
49.
Marietta C, McGuire AL: Currents in contemporary ethics. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: is it the practice of medicine? J Law Med Ethics 2009;37:369-374.
50.
Gordon ES, Griffin G, Wawak L, Pang H, Gollust SE, Bernhardt BA: ‘It's not like judgment day': public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information. J Genet Couns 2012;21:423-432.
51.
Kaphingst KA, McBride CM, Wade C, Alford SH, Reid R, Larson E, Baxevanis AD, Brody LC: Patients' understanding of and responses to multiplex genetic susceptibility test results. Genet Med 2012;14:681-687.
52.
Linnenbringer E, Roberts JS, Hiraki S, Cupples LA, Green RC: ‘I know what you told me, but this is what I think:' Perceived risk of Alzheimer disease among individuals who accurately recall their genetics-based risk estimate. Genet Med 2010;12:219-227.
53.
Kaphingst KA, McBride CM, Wade C, Alford SH, Brody LC, Baxevanis AD: Consumers' use of web-based information and their decisions about multiplex genetic susceptibility testing. J Med Internet Res 2010;12:e41.
54.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA: Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1436-1443.
55.
Lipkus IM: Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007;27:696-713.
56.
Shepperd JA, Lipkus IM, Sanderson SC, McBride CM, O'Neill SC, Docherty S: Testing different communication formats on responses to imagined risk of having versus missing the GSTM1 gene. J Health Commun 2013;18:124-137.
57.
Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM: The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:543-548.
58.
Zikmund-Fisher BJ: The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev 2013;70(suppl 1):37S-49S.
59.
Henneman L, Oosterwijk JC, van Asperen CJ, Menko FH, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Kostense PJ, Claassen L, Timmermans DR: The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: a multicenter controlled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13:55.
60.
Abdel-Kader K, Dew MA, Bhatnagar M, Argyropoulos C, Karpov I, Switzer G, Unruh ML: Numeracy skills in ckd: Correlates and outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:1566-1573.
61.
Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK: General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001;21:37-44.
62.
Rothman RL, Housam R, Weiss H, Davis D, Gregory R, Gebretsadik T, Shintani A, Elasy TA: Patient understanding of food labels: the role of literacy and numeracy. Am J Prev Med 2006;31:391-398.
63.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG: The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:966-972.
64.
Apter AJ, Paasche-Orlow MK, Remillard JT, Bennett IM, Ben-Joseph EP, Batista RM, Hyde J, Rudd RE: Numeracy and communication with patients: they are counting on us. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:2117-2124.
65.
Lea DH, Kaphingst KA, Bowen D, Lipkus I, Hadley DW: Communicating genetic and genomic information: health literacy and numeracy considerations. Public Health Genomics 2011;14:279-289.
66.
Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK: Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev 2007;64:169-190.
67.
Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA: A demonstration of ‘less can be more' in risk graphics. Med Decis Making 2010;30:661-671.
68.
Petty R, Cacioppo J: Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, Springer, 1986.
69.
Harrison HF, Harrison BW, Walker AP, Lohman K, Ellis SD, Hall MA, Reiss J, Adams PC, Holup J, Acton RT, Bent T, Rivers C, Fadojutimi-Akinsiku M: Screening for hemochromatosis and iron overload: satisfaction with results notification and understanding of mailed results in unaffected participants of the HEIRS study. Genet Test 2008;12:491-500.
70.
Timmermans DR, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L: Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Educ Couns 2008;73:443-447.
71.
Vos J, Oosterwijk JC, Gómez-García E, Menko FH, Jansen AM, Stoel RD, van Asperen CJ, Tibben A, Stiggelbout AM: Perceiving cancer-risks and heredity-likelihood in genetic-counseling: how counselees recall and interpret BRCA1/2-test results. Clinical Genet 2011;79:207-218.
72.
Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Mecklin JP, Uutela A, Kaariainen H: Comprehension of cancer risk one and 12 months after predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 2001;38:787-792.
73.
Wijdenes-Pijl M, Dondorp WJ, Timmermans DR, Cornel MC, Henneman L: Lay perceptions of predictive testing for diabetes based on DNA test results versus family history assessment: a focus group study. BMC Public Health 2011;11:535.
74.
Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Warner TD: Effects of reviewing risk-relevant behavior on perceived vulnerability among women marines. Health Psychol 1991;10:173-179.
75.
Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ: Changing inaccurate perceptions of health risk: results from a randomized trial. Health Psychol 1995;14:56-63.
76.
Lipkus IM, Crawford Y, Fenn K, Biradavolu M, Binder RA, Marcus A, Mason M: Testing different formats for communicating colorectal cancer risk. J Health Commun 1999;4:311-324.
77.
Webster R, Heeley E: Perceptions of risk: understanding cardiovascular disease. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2010;3:49-60.
78.
Claassen L, Henneman L, Kindt I, Marteau TM, Timmermans DR: Perceived risk and representations of cardiovascular disease and preventive behaviour in people diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia: a cross-sectional questionnaire study. J Health Psycol 2010;15:33-43.
79.
Acheson LS, Wang C, Zyzanski SJ, Lynn A, Ruffin MTt, Gramling R, Rubinstein WS, O'Neill SM, Nease DE Jr: Family history and perceptions about risk and prevention for chronic diseases in primary care: a report from the family healthware impact trial. Genet Med 2010;12:212-218.
80.
Hivert MF, Warner AS, Shrader P, Grant RW, Meigs JB: Diabetes risk perception and intention to adopt healthy lifestyles among primary care patients. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1820-1822.
81.
Buxton JA, Bottorff JL, Balneaves LG, Richardson C, McCullum M, Ratner PA, Hack T: Women's perceptions of breast cancer risk: are they accurate? Can J Public Health 2003;94:422-426.
82.
Caruso A, Vigna C, Marozzo B, Sega FM, Sperduti I, Cognetti F, Savarese A: Subjective versus objective risk in genetic counseling for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2009;28:157.
83.
Haber G, Ahmed NU, Pekovic V: Family history of cancer and its association with breast cancer risk perception and repeat mammography. Am J Public Health 2012;102:2322-2329.
84.
Pijl M, Henneman L, Claassen L, Detmar SB, Nijpels G, Timmermans DR: Family history of diabetes: exploring perceptions of people at risk in the Netherlands. Prev Chronic Dis 2009;6:A54.
85.
Ashida S, Koehly LM, Roberts JS, Chen CA, Hiraki S, Green RC: The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL study. Eur J Hum Genet 2010;18:1296-1301.
86.
Herder C, Karakas M, Koenig W: Biomarkers for the prediction of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;90:52-66.
87.
Meigs JB, Shrader P, Sullivan LM, McAteer JB, Fox CS, Dupuis J, Manning AK, Florez JC, Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB Sr, Cupples LA: Genotype score in addition to common risk factors for prediction of type 2 diabetes. N Eng J Med 2008;359:2208-2219.
88.
Voight BF, Scott LJ, Steinthorsdottir V, Morris AP, Dina C, et al: Twelve type 2 diabetes susceptibility loci identified through large-scale association analysis. Nat Genet 2010;42:579-589.
89.
Do CB, Hinds DA, Francke U, Eriksson N: Comparison of family history and SNPs for predicting risk of complex disease. PLoS Genet 2012;8:e1002973.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
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.