Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19452265›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2009

A comparative analysis of ethical and professional challenges experienced by Australian and U.S. genetic counselors.

Sarah Alliman, Patricia McCarthy Veach, Dianne M Bartels, Fengqin Lian, Carolyn James, Bonnie S LeRoy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Genetics and ethics.Journal of community genetics · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah AllimanSignature Genomics, Spokane, WA, USA.
Patricia McCarthy Veach
Dianne M Bartels
Fengqin Lian
Carolyn James
Bonnie S LeRoy
University of Minnesota · USRoyal Children's Hospital · AUSignature Analytics (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethical issues are an inevitable part of genetic counseling practice. Prior research identified 16 domains of ethical and professional challenges encountered by practitioners in the United States. In order to further validate these domains, the present study surveyed Australian genetic counselors. Sixty-three respondents rated the frequency with which they encountered each domain, and 39 individuals also provided personal anecdotes detailing their most challenging ethical and professional dilemmas. Every domain reportedly was experienced by the Australian sample. However, there were some differences between Australian respondents and U.S. genetic counselors in frequencies of domain occurrence, and in strategies recommended for resolving them. Several anecdotes illustrate challenging situations due to Australia's geography, universal healthcare system, and the genetic counseling profession's evolution in that country. The results generally validate domains identified for U.S. genetic counselors. They further suggest that certain ethical issues may manifest in ways unique to a given country, and therefore they must be addressed in a culturally-appropriate manner.

Indexed as

Ethics, ProfessionalGenetic CounselingProfessional CompetenceAustraliaHumansUnited StatesWorkforce

Identifiers

PMID19452265
OpenAlexW1973825507

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.