Cochrane for Clinicians

Putting Evidence into Practice

The Impact of Personalized Risk Communication on Screening Decisions


FREE PREVIEW. AAFP members and paid subscribers: Log in to get free access. All others: Purchase online access.

FREE PREVIEW. Purchase online access to read the full version of this article.

Am Fam Physician. 2014 Feb 1;89(3):175-176.

This clinical content conforms to AAFP criteria for continuing medical education (CME). See CME Quiz Questions.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

Clinical Question

What is the impact of personalized risk communication on patient decision making about screening tests?

Evidence-Based Answer

Patients presented with personalized risk information are more likely to make informed decisions about screening than patients who are presented with generic risk information. Individualizing risk appears to improve the accuracy of patients' risk perception and decrease anxiety.

Practice Pointers

Screening tests are not appropriate for every patient. Instead, individual risk and personal values play a role in determining whether a given patient should undergo screening for a disease. Many guidelines recommend that physicians have a discussion with patients when determining whether to perform a specific screening test, and many guidelines use individual risk as a differentiator for recommendations. For instance, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that physicians discuss a patient's risks and values before making a decision about screening for breast cancer.1 Ideal risk communication would increase a patient's knowledge about his or her own risk of a given condition and lead to a well-informed decision to undergo or decline screening for that condition.

This review included 41 studies with a total of 28,700 participants. Three studies evaluated patients' ability to make informed choices with and without individualized risk information. All three of the studies used the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice, a tool that assesses consistency between a patient's knowledge, attitudes, and choices about a screening test.2 Combined, 45% of those receiving personalized risk communication made informed choices, compared with 20% of those receiving generic risk communication. Pooled analysis showed strong evidence that personalized risk communication was associated with increased informed decision making (odds ratio [OR] = 3.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13 to 6.23).

Pooled analysis of nine studies showed improved knowledge levels about screening tests in patients who received personalized risk communication. Similarly, three studies evaluating risk perception showed a trend toward improved risk perception with personalized risk communication (OR = 1.65; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.81). Personalized risk communication resulted in an increase in the uptake of screening tests (OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.29). In the one study that looked at “appropriate uptake” of cholesterol screening, personalized risk communication resulted in higher levels of appropriate uptake (OR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.55).3

Several facts need to be considered when assessing these findings. First, the effects of personalized risk communication on uptake of screening seemed to be greater for participants told they were at higher risk. This could mean that a patient being told that he or she is at high risk is the main effect, rather than the personalized communication of risk. Second, these results were dominated by studies addressing mammography and colorectal cancer screening (34 out of 41 studies), which limits their generalizability to other screening tests. Lastly, to date, there are relatively few conditions for which personalized risk can be accurately calculated quickly and easily. This further calls into question the implications of these findings and highlights the need for continued research to generate clinical risk calculation tools.

Physicians who counsel patients about screening options should help them understand the impact of disease screening in the context of each patient's individual risk. When available, risk calculators that provide individualized risk assessments should be used. The results of this review suggest that this will improve knowledge and informed decision making.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. government, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

The practice recommendations in this activity are available at


Edwards AG, Naik G, Ahmed H, et al. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(2):CD001865.


1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer. Accessed May 22, 2013.

2. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect. 2001;4(2):99–108.

3. Hutchison B, Birch S, Evans CE, et al. Screening for hypercholesterolaemia in primary care: randomised controlled trial of postal questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease. BMJ. 1998;316(7139):1208–1213.

These are summaries of reviews from the Cochrane Library.

The series coordinator for AFP is Corey D. Fogleman, MD, Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, Lancaster, Pa.

A collection of Cochrane for Clinicians published in AFP is available at


Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions

More in AFP

More in Pubmed

Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article