Abstract
Genetic counselling traditionally expresses risk in proportions (e.g. 1 in 112) rather than as rates (e.g., 8.9 per 1000). The justification for this practice is unclear. To assess the understanding of lay persons of the risk of Down's Syndrome, whether expressed as rates or as proportions, we analysed 589 self-administered questionnaires. Overall, respondents understood rates significantly better than proportions (76.2% vs 72.3% correct, respectively; P=0.03) Evidence from two studies in disparate populations suggests that rates are better understood and thus are the preferred way to explain genetic risk to lay persons.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
