Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25273951›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2015

Patient expectations and attitudes towards specialist genetic eye services.

E Clarke, R Combs, G Black, G Hall

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2015. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

E ClarkeManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Institute of Human Development, Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, UK, ekmc2014@gmail.com.
R Combs
G Black
G Hall

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little research has explored the views of patients referred to specialist genetic eye clinics. Future service development must be informed by the perspectives of patients to ensure services are accessible and meet their needs. Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with patients referred to the Genetic Eye Clinic in Manchester, UK. Participants were interviewed before their first appointment. The interview transcripts were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Nine interviews took place. Five participants were adults with sight loss and 4 were the parent/carer of a child patient. The major themes identified were: expectations of a medical-genetic focus to the clinic, psychological adjustment to the diagnosis of an eye condition impacting on counselling and support needs, lack of preparation and restricted expectations due to unfamiliarity with the service and positive attitudes towards genetic research and testing. Key motivating factors for patients attending specialist ophthalmic genetic services are medical-genetic orientated, including accurate diagnostic and prognostic information, participation in research and clarification of recurrence risks. Some barriers to patients accessing and fully engaging with services were identified. There is a need to raise awareness of the specialist service amongst the public, patient organisations and professionals. Facilitating patient preparation for clinic could improve patient outcomes, and the need for integrated services is reinforced. The results feed into the development of a best practice model for the delivery of specialist ophthalmic genetic services.

Indexed as

AttitudeGenetic TestingAdultCaregiversEye DiseasesFemaleGenetic CounselingHumansMaleMiddle AgedParentsPatientsUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

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.