Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22037898›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2012

Commentary: how individual and profession-level factors influence discussion of disability in prenatal genetic counseling.

Jan Hodgson, Jon Weil

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jan Hodgson
Jon Weil
Murdoch Children's Research Institute · AUUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hodgson and Weil (Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2011) reports on two interactive workshops in which genetic counselors identified a broad set of counseling issues that may be impediments to promoting an adequate discussion of disability in prenatal genetic counseling. The present commentary discusses two factors that we infer underlie these counseling issues. First, countertransference concerning disability, which is normal and expected, may influence genetic counselors' decisions about raising and exploring the complex topic of disability in prenatal genetic counseling. Second, the limited involvement of the profession of genetic counseling in the complex social and ethical issues of disability provide little guidance to the individual genetic counselor with respect to discussing disability in prenatal diagnosis counseling. We suggest both factors must be acknowledged and addressed in order to adequately implement the recommendations presented in Hodgson and Weil (Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2011) as well as other efforts to increase discussion of disability in prenatal diagnosis counseling in the service of informed decision making.

Indexed as

EugenicsGenetic CounselingPeer GroupFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID22037898
OpenAlexW2084221738

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.