ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014
Models of service delivery for cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling.
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 46 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
46 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uptake of Cancer Genetic Services for Chatbot vs Standard-of-Care Delivery Models: The BRIDGE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Development of a web-based, theory-guided narrative intervention for women at elevated risk for breast cancer.Patient education and counseling · 2023Trial
- Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM): A clinical trial assessing a multimodal cancer genetics services delivery program and its impact on diverse populations.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Trial
- Comparing models of delivery for cancer genetics services among patients receiving primary care who meet criteria for genetic evaluation in two healthcare systems: BRIDGE randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Preferences for in-person disclosure: Patients declining telephone disclosure characteristics and outcomes in the multicenter Communication Of GENetic Test Results by Telephone study.Clinical genetics · 2019Trial
- Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone vs In-Person Disclosure of Germline Cancer Genetic Test Results.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2018Trial
- Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Trial
- Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.Familial cancer · 2016Trial
- Cancer history, rural residence, and genetic cancer risk testing engagement among U.S. adults.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Genetic counseling services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: patients' experience and satisfaction with different service models.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Pediatric genetic counselor use and perception of various clinic models.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Development and preliminary evaluation of a genetics education booklet for retinoblastoma.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Integration of Germline Genetic Testing Into Routine Clinical Practice for Patients With Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.JCO oncology practice · 2025Article
- Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Family history and cancer risk study (FOREST): A clinical trial assessing electronic patient-directed family history input for identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Using a behaviour-change approach to support uptake of population genomic screening and management options for breast or prostate cancer.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Article
- Genetic counseling and testing for females at elevated risk for breast cancer: Protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the Know Your Risk intervention.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Article
- Mainstreaming germline genetic testing for patients with pancreatic cancer increases uptake.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- 'Steep learning curves' to 'Smooth Sailing': A reappraisal of telegenetics amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing awareness of and the potentially concomitant increasing demand for cancer genetic services is driving the need to explore more efficient models of service delivery. The aims of this study were to determine which service delivery models are most commonly used by genetic counselors, assess how often they are used, compare the efficiency of each model as well as impact on access to services, and investigate the perceived benefits and barriers of each. Full members of the NSGC Familial Cancer Special Interest Group who subscribe to its listserv were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Eligible respondents were asked which of ten defined service delivery models they use and specific questions related to aspects of model use. One-hundred ninety-two of the approximately 450 members of the listserv responded (42.7%); 177 (92.2%) had provided clinical service in the last year and were eligible to complete all sections of the survey. The four direct care models most commonly used were the (traditional) face-to-face pre- and post-test model (92.2%), the face-to-face pretest without face-to-face post-test model (86.5%), the post-test counseling only for complex results model (36.2%), and the post test counseling for all results model (18.3%). Those using the face-to-face pretest only, post-test all, and post-test complex models reported seeing more new patients than when they used the traditional model and these differences were statistically significantly. There were no significant differences in appointment wait times or distances traveled by patients when comparing use of the traditional model to the other three models. Respondents recognize that a benefit of using alternative service delivery models is increased access to services; however, some are concerned that this may affect quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24158360What 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.