Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


Choi_Thesis Manuscript_ Final.pdf (478.77 KB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

An Assessment of Genetic Counselors' Numeracy and its Relationship with Risk Assessment and Communication Practices

Choi, Samantha, Choi
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1586513455155852

Abstract Details

2020, Master of Science, Ohio State University, Genetic Counseling.
Purpose: We sought to address three aims within our study: (1) Assess objective and subjective numeracy of practicing genetic counselors (GCs) and genetic counseling trainees (GCTs), (2) Explore the relation of numeracy with GCs’ and GCTs’ preference for the format of communicating statistical risk information to both patients and providers, and (3) Examine the relation of numeracy on GCs’ and GCTs’ interpretation of risk information for patients. Method: GCs who were members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and GCTs who were enrolled in an Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC)-accredited genetic counseling graduate program completed a survey about their preference for the format of risk communication to patients and healthcare providers, a task to assign qualitative labels to various numeric formats, an objective numeracy scale, and a subjective numeracy scale. Results: On average, GC and GCT objective numeracy was high with means of 4.2 (SD = 1.3) and 3.7 (SD = 1.3), respectively, and an overall mean of 3.9 (SD = 1.3, range = 1-6). GC and GCT subjective numeracy was also high with means of 5.0 (SD = 0.60) and 4.7 (SD = 0.65), respectively, and a total mean of 4.8 (SD = 0.60). Overall, GCs and GCTs use different numeric formats when communicating with patients when compared to other healthcare providers. There was no evidence that either subjective or objective numeracy had any effect on preference for the format of risk communication. There were significant differences in GCs’ and GCTs’ interpretation of risk between format. There is some suggestion that individuals with lower subjective and objective numeracy levels were less likely to be consistent in their interpretations across numeric formats. Conclusion: Overall, GCs and GCTs have high objective and subjective numeracy; however, differences in these abilities may still have significant impact on patient care.
Kate Shane-Carson, MS, LGC (Advisor)
Leigha Senter, MS, LGC (Committee Member)
Dawn Allain, MS, LGC (Committee Member)
61 p.
Genetics
numeracy; genetic counselors; genetic counseling; risk assessment; risk communication

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Choi, Choi, S. (2020). An Assessment of Genetic Counselors' Numeracy and its Relationship with Risk Assessment and Communication Practices [Master's thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1586513455155852

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Choi, Choi, Samantha. An Assessment of Genetic Counselors' Numeracy and its Relationship with Risk Assessment and Communication Practices. 2020. Ohio State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1586513455155852.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Choi, Choi, Samantha. "An Assessment of Genetic Counselors' Numeracy and its Relationship with Risk Assessment and Communication Practices." Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 2020. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1586513455155852

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1586513455155852
548
© 2020, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.