Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Theory Based Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patt, A. G., & Schrag, D. P. (2003). Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change, 61, 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resta, R. G. (2006). Defining and redefining the scope and goals of genetic counseling. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 142(4), 269–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, A. (2000). Embodying risk, embodying political rationality: women’s accounts of risks for breast cancer. Health, Risk and Society, 2(2), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senay, I., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2009). Anchoring and adjustment bias in communication of disease risk. Medical Decision Making, 29(2), 193–201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh, S. (2006). Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: a theoretical review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(5), 325–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh, S., & Sagi, M. (1989). Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence risks. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 33(1), 130–135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh, S., & Saxe, L. (1989). Perception of risk in genetic counseling. Psychology and Health, 3(1), 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Psychiatry and Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Rm A3-112 - 3rd Floor, CFRI Translational Lab Building, 938 W28th Ave, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V5Z 4H4

    Jehannine C. Austin

Authors
  1. Jehannine C. Austin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jehannine C. Austin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Austin, J.C. Re-conceptualizing Risk in Genetic Counseling: Implications for Clinical Practice. J Genet Counsel 19, 228–234 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9279-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010-9279-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation