A focus group study on breast cancer risk presentation: one format does not fit all.
Fiche publication
Date publication
juillet 2013
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Dr MAUGARD Christine
Tous les auteurs :
Dorval M, Bouchard K, Chiquette J, Glendon G, Maugard CM, Dubuisson W, Panchal S, Simard J
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
Identifying a strategy that would optimize both the communication and understanding of the individual breast cancer risk remains a considerable challenge. This study explored the preferences of women with a family history of breast cancer about six presentation formats of individual breast cancer risk, as calculated from a risk prediction model. Thirty-four unaffected women attending genetic counseling because of a family history of breast cancer participated in six focus groups conducted in Quebec City (2), Montreal (2) and Toronto (2), Canada. Six risk formats were presented for a fictitious case involving a 35-year-old woman (1-numerical: cumulative risk probabilities by age until 80 years; 2-risk curves: probabilities expressed in a risk curve that also provided a risk curve for a woman with no family history in first-degree relatives; 3-relative risk of breast cancer by age 80 years; 4 and 5-absolute risk of breast cancer and absolute chance of not developing breast cancer in the next 20 years; 6-qualitative: color-coded figure). Participants were asked to indicate their appreciation of each format. A group discussion followed during which participants commented on each format. The most and least appreciated formats were risk curves and relative risk, respectively. Overall, participants advocated the use of formats that combine quantitative, qualitative and visual features. Using a combination of approaches to communicate individual breast cancer risks could be associated with higher satisfaction of counselees. Given the increasing use of risk prediction models, it may be relevant to consider the preferences of both the counselee and the professional.
Référence
Eur J Hum Genet. 2013 Jul;21(7):719-24