4.5 Review

Interventions to improve risk communication in clinical genetics: Systematic review

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 71, 期 1, 页码 4-25

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.026

关键词

risk communication; clinical genetics; systematic review

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [RES-145-28-1003-A] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Effective risk communication may enable clients to participate effectively in decision-making about their health and health care. A systematic review of existing literature on risk communication in genetics, and its effects on key outcomes for clients, was undertaken. Method: Systematic searching of six electronic databases and data extraction from included studies; narrative synthesis of results. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included, principally from cancer genetics. Sixteen communication interventions have been evaluated, generally showing improvements in cognitive outcomes for users, such as knowledge, understanding and risk perception, and without adverse effects on anxiety, cancer-related worry and depression. However, often it was the supportive or emotional elements of counselling that provided benefits to users, rather than the informational or educational elements. Similar results were found in 12 further studies of decision aids which also appear to achieve shorter consultations that can focus more on the supportive elements of counselling. Conclusion: For both communication models and decision aids, the supportive or emotional elements of counselling provided more benefits to users than the informational or educational elements. Practice implications: Debate is required on how to strike a balance between the medical model, its agenda and perceived requirements to disclose or discuss a range of issues and the sometimes competing goals of addressing users' concerns, needs for support, issues of loss and relationship problems. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据