ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2010
Explaining Mendelian inheritance in genetic consultations: an IPR study of counselor and counselee experiences.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proxy patients' perceptions of genetic counselor empathy responses.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Picture this: Evaluating the efficacy of genetic counseling visual aids.Journal of genetic counseling · 2024Article
- Clients' and genetic counselors' perceptions of empathy in Japan: A pilot study of simulated consultations of genetic counseling.PloS one · 2023Article
- Portrait of the Master Genetic Counselor Clinician: A Qualitative Investigation of Expertise in Genetic Counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The explanation of Mendelian inheritance is a key component of most genetic counselling consultations, yet no evidence base exists for this area of practice. This qualitative study used Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) to explore how information about X-linked inheritance is provided and received in genetic counseling. Twelve consultations involving two senior genetic counselors and 21 counselees were videotaped. Section(s) of videotape featuring the explanation were subsequently played back separately to both counselees and counselors and their responses and reflections recorded. All interviews were fully transcribed and analysed using the constant comparison method. A personalized diagram, drawn "live" by the counselor during the consultation was recalled by counselees as being central to their understanding of the "bottom line". This helped bridge the gap between scientific information and their family experience and did not appear to require a baseline understanding of genetic concepts such as genes or chromosomes. Counselors reflected on the diagram's positive impact on the way they sequenced, paced and tailored the explanation. A positive counselor-counselee relationship was vital even during this educative exchange: for counselees to feel at ease discussing complex genetic information and to help gauge counselee understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.