Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14682354›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2003

Psychosocial genetic counseling in the post-nondirective era: a point of view.

Jon Weil

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Family Sense-Making After a Down Syndrome Diagnosis.Qualitative health research · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jon Weil2015 Mira Vista Drive, El Cerrito, California 94530, USA. weilj@uclink.Berkeley.EDU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For three decades nondirectiveness has served as the central ethos for genetic counseling. It has evolved from narrow definitions defining what should not be done to broad definitions that promote active counseling skills in support of client autonomy and informed decision making. As broad definitions have been formulated, the term "nondirective" has become largely irrelevant to their content; it persists primarily as a historic relic. It has thus become an impediment to creative theory and clinical practice. I propose that nondirectiveness be replaced as the central ethos, while relevant components (providing balanced information, not imposing the counselor's values) are retained as elements of practice and ethics. This raises the question of what principle(s) should be adopted as a new guiding ethos. To promote a discussion of that issue I propose that the central ethos of genetic counseling should be to bring the psychosocial component into every aspect of the work.

Indexed as

Directive CounselingGenetic CounselingHumansProfessional-Patient RelationsPsychologyGenetics and Reproduction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.