Cited by 91BRCA gene mutations in cancerDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Assessing hypothetical scenario methodology in genetic susceptibility testing analog studies: a quantitative review

Open access
Persky, Susan, Kaphingst, Kimberly A., Condit, Celeste M., McBride, Colleen M.·2007·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

Hypothetical scenario methodology is commonly employed in the study of genetic susceptibility testing uptake estimation. The methodology, however, has not been rigorously assessed and sizeable gaps exist between estimated and actual uptake for tests that have recently become available. This quantitative review explores the effect of several theoretically based factors on genetic test uptake accuracy among a sample of 38 articles. These factors include verbal immediacy and temporal proximity of test scenarios, method of decision assessment, content of testing detail provided, processing demand required, and study features related to administration and sample. A number of assessed factors influenced uptake accuracy. Among these, temporal proximity of the genetic susceptibility test appeared to be the most consistent. There was also some evidence for effects of verbal immediacy and decision-assessment method on interest in testing. We recommend strategies for increasing accuracy using hypothetical scenario methodology to examine genetic susceptibility test uptake prediction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/gim.0b013e318159a344

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Attention to features such as verbal immediacy, temporal proximity, level of detail, format of response options, and cognitive demand may help improve predictive accuracy of hypothetical scenarios, and constructing hypotheticals in second-person as opposed to third-person language matters, as does eliciting "should" as opposed to "would" responses.

    “Attention to features such as verbal immediacy, temporal proximity, level of detail, format of response options, and cognitive demand may help improve predictive accuracy (108). Similar to the difference between asking about preference and asking about acceptability, constructing hypotheticals in second-person as opposed to third-person language matters, as does eliciting “should” as opposed to “”
  • The use of hypothetical scenarios has disadvantages but also important advantages as a practical, flexible, and efficient way to study complex ethical concerns, and in the face of emerging issues, they can be used to anticipate public reactions, manipulate key contextual variables, and contribute to the development of evidence-based interventions to preempt adverse outcomes.

    “The use of hypothetical scenarios—like all methodologies—has disadvantages, but it also has important advantages as a practical, flexible, and efficient way to study complex ethical concerns (142). In the face of emerging issues, hypothetical scenarios can be used to anticipate public reactions, manipulate key contextual variables, and contribute to the development of evidence-based interventions”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Persky, S., Kaphingst, K. A., Condit, C. M., & McBride, C. M.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Persky, Susan
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
727-738
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017609724
Cited by
91
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2007-12-01)
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (Z99 HG999999)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
genetic susceptibility testing, temporal proximity, verbal immediacy, processing demands
MeSH terms
Genetic Testing, Humans, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review