Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy
Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/pon.3537
复制
发表时间：
2014-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Ozanne, Elissa
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hanoch, Yaniv;Miron-Shatz, Talya;Ozanne, Elissa
背景大多数（71%）接受BRCA 1/2检测的女性，其检测目的是确定与癌症风险增加相关的基因突变，结果被称为模糊的“或无信息的阴性”。妇女如何解释这些结果和与数字能力的关联examined.MethodsIn这项研究中，477名妇女在乳腺癌和卵巢癌的风险增加，通过癌症遗传学网络招募。他们被告知四种可能的BRCA 1/2检测结果：阳性、真阴性、模棱两可和无信息阴性，并被要求指出六种选择中哪一种代表最佳反应。然后，参与者被问到他们认为接受结果的女性应该与她的医生讨论哪些治疗方案。最后，参与者完成的措施，客观和主观numeracy.ResultsAlmost所有的参与者正确解释的积极和消极的BRCA 1/2基因检测结果。然而，他们遇到了困难，无法解释的信息和模糊的BRCA 1/2基因检测结果。参与者几乎同样可能认为女性从测试结果中什么也没学到，或者她和普通女性一样有可能患上癌症。高计算能力的参与者更有可能正确解释不确定的测试结果（模棱两可，OR=1.62; 95%CI [1.28，2.07]; p
BackgroundThe majority of women (71%) who undergo BRCA1/2 testingdesigned to identify genetic mutations associated with increased risk of cancerreceive results that are termed ambiguous' or uninformative negative'. How women interpret these results and the association with numerical ability was examined.MethodsIn this study, 477 women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer were recruited via the Cancer Genetics Network. They were presented with information about the four different possible BRCA1/2 test resultspositive, true negative, ambiguous and uninformative negativeand asked to indicate which of six options represents the best response. Participants were then asked which treatment options they thought a woman receiving the results should discuss with her doctor. Finally, participants completed measures of objective and subjective numeracy.ResultsAlmost all of the participants correctly interpreted the positive and negative BRCA1/2 genetic test results. However, they encountered difficulties interpreting the uninformative and ambiguous BRCA1/2 genetic test results. Participants were almost equally likely to think either that the woman had learned nothing from the test result or that she was as likely to develop cancer as the average woman. Highly numerate participants were more likely to correctly interpret inconclusive test results (ambiguous, OR=1.62; 95% CI [1.28, 2.07]; p