Exploring Genetic Numeracy Skills in a Sample of U.S. University Students

Bergman, Margo; Goodson, Patricia; Goltz, Heather Honoré

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00229

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We observed the lowest approval rating for visual aids (89%) suggesting that optimal modes for visually conveying genetic concepts (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, risk) merit further investigation. This is a salient point as even college‐educated individuals have limited genetic numeracy skills (Bergman et al., 2017). Further, lay public familiarity and understanding of genetic terms and concepts remain challenging despite efforts to simplify language (NASEM, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating co‐created patient‐facing materials to increase understanding of genetic test results

Dwyer

Smith³

et al. 2020

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients often have difficulty understanding genetic test reports. Technical language and jargon can impede comprehension and limit patients using results to act on findings. One potential way to improve patient understanding of genetic test reports is to provide patient‐facing materials. This study aimed to examine understandability and actionability of co‐created patient‐facing materials for genetic test results in a research context. We combined interprofessional perspectives and patient engagement to co‐create patient‐facing materials for patients undergoing research genetic testing for congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (Kallmann syndrome). The iterative development process was guided by principles of health literacy and human‐centered design (i.e., design thinking). Readability was assessed using eight validated algorithms. Patients and parents evaluated materials using a web‐based survey. The gold standard Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for print materials (PEMAT‐P) was employed to measure understandability (content, style, use of numbers, organization, design, use of visual aids) and actionability. PEMAT‐P scores >80% were considered high quality. Results were analyzed descriptively and correlations performed to identify relationships between education/health literacy and PEMAT‐P ratings. A consensus score of eight algorithms indicated the materials were an 8th–9th grade reading level. Our findings are consistent with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ‘average difficulty’ classification (i.e., 7th–9th grade). In total, 61 patients/parents evaluated the materials. ‘Visual Aids’ received the lowest mean PEMAT‐P rating (89%). All other parameters scored 90%–97%. PEMAT‐P scores did not differ according to educational attainment (less than college vs. college or more, p = 0.28). Participants with adequate health literacy were more likely to approve of the ‘organization’ of information (p < 0.05). Respondents with low health literacy had more favorable views of ‘visual aids’ (p < 0.01). Involving patients in a co‐creation process can produce high‐quality patient‐facing materials that are easier to understand.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, a recent evaluation of genetic testing reports from 26 laboratories revealed that results are written at a graduate school level (Davis et al., 2019). Moreover, even highly educated individuals (i.e., college graduates) have numeracy gaps that impede estimation of genetic risk (Bergman et al., 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating co‐created patient‐facing materials to increase understanding of genetic test results

Dwyer

Smith³

et al. 2020

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our participants may have appeared more knowledgeable because we asked mostly basic questions about genetics, although the questions were similar to those used in [32], which reported significantly lower knowledge levels; only a few questions asked about health implications or interactions between genes and the environment. To better determine what the public knows, further studies and those with a more standardized way of assessing genomic knowledge are needed [19, 21, 22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The level of genetic numeracy, defined as the ability to understand and estimate genetic risk, may also be low. A survey of university students found that only a small proportion had high genetic numeracy, but they were more willing to receive prenatal testing in the future, indicating the translation of genomic knowledge to behavior [22]. Consistent with this possibility, a recent study found that higher numeracy correlated with correct interpretation of a direct-to-consumer pharmacogenetics test report [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in Improving Genomic Literacy: Results from National and Regional Surveys of Genomic Knowledge, Attitudes, Concerns, and Behaviors

Jaeger

Hellwig

Schiavoni

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Information about genomics is increasingly available to mainstream society, with more and more emphasis on using genomic information to make health care decisions. To determine how prepared people are to use this knowledge to make critical health-related decisions, we assessed the public's level of genomic literacy and whether this knowledge affects their engagement in behaviors related to genomics, such as getting genetic testing. Methods: A survey assessing perceived and actual knowledge, attitudes, concerns, sources of information, and behaviors related to genomics was administered to national and regional samples of participants. A hierarchical linear regression tested whether knowledge and attitudes predicted engagement in behaviors related to genomics. Results: Participants had good basic knowledge of genetics, though they were less familiar with the term "the human genome". They also displayed positive attitudes towards genomic research, despite expressing many concerns. Both greater knowledge and more positive attitudes significantly and independently predicted greater engagement in genetic testing and other related proactive health behaviors. Conclusion: Knowledge and concerns about genomics impact the public's ability and willingness to obtain genetic testing and engage in other proactive health behaviors. The public's genomic literacy could be enhanced by integrating their knowledge (e.g of DNA) with broader concepts (e.g. the human genome and genomics) and how they relate to health. Future research is needed on interventions that do this, to improve the public's genomic literacy through relationships that build trust

show abstract

“…Genetic/genetic-related course(s) at college. We asked participants if they had taken a course in genetics or genomics at college (no or yes) and had ever enrolled in a course containing genetics/genomics-related information in college (no or yes) [38].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are College Students Interested in Family Health History Education? A Large Needs Assessment Survey Study

Kwok

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Family health history (FHH) is an essential foundation for personalized disease prevention. As the incidence of early-onset chronic diseases is increasing among college students, it is important to provide them with the education required to learn about their FHH. This study aimed to assess college students’ interest in receiving FHH education, preferred topics, and desired learning methods. We invited college students to complete an online survey from a large research-intensive university. A total of 2276 college students completed the survey. Nearly half of the participants self-identified as non-Hispanic white (45.5%). Slightly more than half of the sample (53.9%) were not interested in receiving FHH education mainly due to low prioritization. Among those who expressed interest in obtaining FHH education, the three most desired learning topics were the ability to interpret FHH information (76.1%), the application of FHH in disease prevention (72.0%), and FHH information collection strategies (63.6%). Computer-based learning (51.1%) was the most preferred educational method. Moreover, females, older individuals, those who have FHH in first-degree relatives, and participants who were members of racial and ethnic groups showed greater interests in receiving FHH education (ps < 0.05). Strategies to promote college students’ awareness, collection, and use of FHH are needed.

show abstract

Exploring Genetic Numeracy Skills in a Sample of U.S. University Students

Cited by 5 publications

References 43 publications

Evaluating co‐created patient‐facing materials to increase understanding of genetic test results

Evaluating co‐created patient‐facing materials to increase understanding of genetic test results

Challenges in Improving Genomic Literacy: Results from National and Regional Surveys of Genomic Knowledge, Attitudes, Concerns, and Behaviors

Are College Students Interested in Family Health History Education? A Large Needs Assessment Survey Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About