The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: a multicenter controlled trial

Table 1 Characteristics of the study population at baseline

	Frequency format	Frequency format + Graphical display	Differences
	N = 62	N = 87	P-value
Age, mean (sd) year, range	40 (11), 20-63	41 (12), 18-70	.464^c
Education^a, n (%)			.804^d
Low	10 (16)	15 (18)
Intermediate	26 (42)	30 (37)
High	26 (42)	37 (45)
Married or cohabiting, n (%)	46 (74)	68 (79)	.487^d
Number of children, mean (sd)	1.5 (1.5)	1.7 (1.3)	.432^c
Ethnicity, n (%)			.428^d
Both parents Dutch	55 (92)	77 (90)
Parent(s) not Dutch (Western)	3 (5)	8 (9)
Parent(s) not Western	2 (3)	1 (1)
(Very) actively religious, n (%)	16 (25)	22 (26)	.772^d
Family history of breast cancer
# 1st degree relatives affected, mean (sd)	1.4 (0.7)	1.3 (0.6)	.706^c
# 2nd degree relatives affected, mean (sd)	2.1 (1.1)	1.9 (1.0)	.261^c
Women’s breast cancer risk estimation^b, n (%)			.268^d
Not/slightly increased (10-20%)	25 (40)	35 (40)
Moderately increased (20-30%)	21 (34)	28 (32)
Highly increased (30-40%)	16 (26)	25 (28)

^aLow: primary school, lower level of secondary school, lower vocational training. Intermediate: higher level of secondary school, intermediate vocational training. High: higher vocational training, university.
^bAs estimated by the genetic counselor during standard genetic counseling before risk consultation. Not/slightly increased risk group included two women with population breast cancer risk in each group.
^ct-test.
^dChi²-test.
Sd = standard deviation.

ISSN: 1472-6947