Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Mar 30;196(1):52-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.02.005. Epub 2012 Mar 14.

Descriptive and numeric estimation of risk for psychotic disorders among affected individuals and relatives: implications for clinical practice

Affiliations

Descriptive and numeric estimation of risk for psychotic disorders among affected individuals and relatives: implications for clinical practice

Jehannine C Austin et al. Psychiatry Res. .

Abstract

Studies show that individuals with psychotic illnesses and their families want information about psychosis risks for other relatives. However, deriving accurate numeric probabilities for psychosis risk is challenging, and people have difficulty interpreting probabilistic information; thus, some have suggested that clinicians should use risk descriptors, such as "moderate" or "quite high", rather than numbers. Little is known about how individuals with psychosis and their family members use quantitative and qualitative descriptors of risk in the specific context of chance for an individual to develop psychosis. We explored numeric and descriptive estimations of psychosis risk among individuals with psychotic disorders and unaffected first-degree relatives. In an online survey, respondents numerically and descriptively estimated risk for an individual to develop psychosis in scenarios where they had: A) no affected family members; and B) an affected sibling. Participants comprised 219 affected individuals and 211 first-degree relatives participated. Affected individuals estimated significantly higher risks than relatives. Participants attributed all descriptors between "very low" and "very high" to probabilities of 1%, 10%, 25% and 50%+. For a given numeric probability, different risk descriptors were attributed in different scenarios. Clinically, brief interventions around risk (using either probabilities or descriptors alone) are vulnerable to miscommunication and potentially negative consequences-interventions around risk are best suited to in-depth discussion.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Austin JC. Re-conceptualizing risk in genetic counseling: implications for clinical practice. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2010;19(3):228–34. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Austin JC, Palmer C, Sheidley B, McCarthy Veach P, Gettig B, Peay H. Psychiatric disorders in clinical genetics II: Individualizing recurrence risks. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2008;17(1):18–29. - PubMed
    1. Austin JC, Peay HL. Applications and limitations of empiric data in provision of recurrence risks for schizophrenia: a practical review for healthcare professionals providing clinical psychiatric genetics consultations. Clinical Genetics. 2006;70(3):177–187. - PubMed
    1. Austin JC, Smith GN, Honer WG. The genomic era and perceptions of psychotic disorders: genetic risk estimation, associations with reproductive decisions, and views about predictive testing. American Journal of Medical Genetics. 2006;141B:926–928. - PubMed
    1. Bjorvatn C, Eide GE, Hanestad BR, Oyen N, Havik OE, Carlsson A, Berglund G. Risk perception, worry, and satisfaction related to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2007;16(2):211–222. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding