ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014
Evaluation of a clinical genetics service--a quality initiative.
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 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.
- Patient Perceptions of Telephone vs. In-Person BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Trial
- Article
- Evaluation of telephone genetic counselling to facilitate germline BRCA1/2 testing in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Elucidating Genetic Counseling Outcomes from the Perspective of Genetic Counselors.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paper-based surveys are an effective means of evaluating the quality of a clinical service. As part of ongoing quality improvement initiatives within our Genetics Program, new patients were invited to participate in a paper-based survey. Issues related to the quality of counseling based on educational/informational aspects (e.g. whether testing was explained fully, testing options, the meaning of normal/abnormal testing), competency, respect and nondirectiveness of counseling in addition to clinical environment/setting were evaluated. Data related to demographics, discipline seen within the program and whether the patient was seen by a physician or genetic counselor were also captured. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed. One hundred and forty-seven questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 29.4 %. The majority of patients seen were prenatal (pregnant) patients and comprised a heterogeneous group including those seen for advanced maternal age and abnormal maternal serum screening. Overall, 98.6 % of respondents felt their appointment in genetics was a positive experience. Issues related to confidentiality, pros and cons of testing, meaning of an abnormal test result and time allotted for decision making were significantly different in some disciplines between genetic counselor and geneticist. However, when controlling for referral indication, these differences lost significance with the exception of issues relating to confidentiality and perceived time allotted to organize thoughts and questions. This survey provided valuable information to allow for improvement in the quality of the provision of service.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24647747What 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.