ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2015
Are Australasian Genetic Counselors Interested in Private Practice at the Primary Care Level of Health Service?
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 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.
- Factors That Influence Genetic Counselors' Professional Identity-A Qualitative Study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Patient Satisfaction with Private Genetic Counselling for Familial Cancer in Western Australia: A Prospective Audit.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results.Clinical genetics · 2021Article
- Genetic Counsellors and Private Practice: Professional Turbulence and Common Values.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explored the perceived interest in development of private genetic counseling services in collaboration with primary care physicians in the Australasian setting by online survey of members of the Australasian Society of Genetic Counselors. Four hypothetical private practice models of professional collaboration between genetic counselors and primary care physicians or clinical geneticists were proposed to gauge interest and enthusiasm of ASGC members for this type of professional development. Perceived barriers and facilitators were also evaluated. 78 completed responses were included for analysis. The majority of participants (84.6 %) showed a positive degree of interest and enthusiasm towards potential for clinical work in private practice. All proposed practice models yielded a positive degree of interest from participants. Model 4 (the only model of collaboration with a clinical geneticist rather than primary care physician) was the clearly preferred option (mean = 4.26/5), followed by Model 2 (collaboration with a single primary care practice) (mean = 4.09/5), Model 3 (collaboration with multiple primary care clinics, multidisciplinary clinic or specialty clinic) (mean = 3.77/5) and finally, Model 1 (mean = 3.61/5), which was the most independent model of practice. When participants ranked the options in the order of preference, Model 4 remained the most popular first preference (44.6 %), followed by model 2 (21.6 %), model 3 (18.9 %) and model 1 was again least popular (10.8 %). There was no significant statistical correlation between demographic characteristics (age bracket, years of work experience, current level of work autonomy) and participants' preference for private practice models. Support from clinical genetics colleagues and the professional society was highly rated as a facilitator and, conversely, lack of such support as a significant barrier.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25605546What 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.