ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014
Identifying outcomes of clinical genetic services: qualitative evidence and methodological considerations.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of FOCUS-GC: Framework for Outcomes of Clinical Communication Services in Genetic Counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Defining Our Clinical Practice: The Identification of Genetic Counseling Outcomes Utilizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
- Are Australasian Genetic Counselors Interested in Private Practice at the Primary Care Level of Health Service?Journal of genetic counseling · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extensive research into the tangible and intangible implications of Clinical Genetic Services (CGSs) has confirmed the relevance of a multidimensional outcome of benefit conceptually linked to perceived control. This paper aims to report qualitative findings from one small study aiming to add to the evidence pool confirming the relevance of such an outcome to participants from one UK clinical genetics center. Data were collected using focus groups and individual interviews with 22 service users from the following conditions: Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC), von Hippel Lindau disorder (VHL), Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy (DBMD), cystic fibrosis (CF) and tuberous sclerosis (TS). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and four dimensions of benefit were identified relating to cognitive, behavioral, social and emotional consequences. These dimensions related to an overarching conceptual outcome described as Perceived Familial Control. Findings are discussed to illustrate the inter-generational and intra-generational familial dimensions of CGSs and reinforce the significance of a familial focus to any genetics-specific outcome measure. The prospect and methodological considerations of a familial composite outcome measure for measuring overall benefit of CGSs is discussed based on current and past findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24037031What 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.