ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2016
A Comparison of Telephone Genetic Counseling and In-Person Genetic Counseling from the Genetic Counselor's Perspective.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.Familial cancer · 2016Trial
- Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Delivery of BRCA1/2 Genetic Counseling Compared With In-Person Counseling: 1-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2016Trial
- Unveiling genetic counseling skills: Developing an online training course and analyzing counselor communication practices.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- The growing needs of genetic counselling-Feasibility in utilization of tele-genetic counselling in Asia and Hong Kong.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Remote vs in-person BRCA1/2 non-carriers test disclosure: patients' choice during Covid-19 pandemic restriction.Familial cancer · 2023Article
- Changes to the genetic counseling workforce as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Sudden shift to remote genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of genetics professionals in Italy.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Patients' and professionals' perspective of non-in-person visits in hereditary cancer: predictors and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Familial/inherited cancer syndrome: a focus on the highly consanguineous Arab population.NPJ genomic medicine · 2020Review
- Fragile X syndrome carrier screening accompanied by genetic consultation has clinical utility in populations beyond those recommended by guidelines.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
- Creation and Implementation of an Environmental Scan to Assess Cancer Genetics Services at Three Oncology Care Settings.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Genetic Counselors' Experiences and Interest in Telegenetics and Remote Counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Psychological Impact of Learning CDKN2A Variant Status as a Genetic Research Result.Public health genomics · 2018Article
- Alternate Service Delivery Models in Cancer Genetic Counseling: A Mini-Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2016Review
- Acceptability and Future Considerations for Telegenetic Counseling After the COVID Pandemic: Interviews with Genetic Counselors, Clinicians, and Patients.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing demand for and limited geographic access to genetic counseling services is increasing the need for alternative service delivery models (SDM) like telephone genetic counseling (TGC). Little research has been done on genetic counselors' perspectives of the practice of TGC. We created an anonymous online survey to assess whether telephone genetic counselors believed the tasks identified in the ABGC (American Board of Genetic Counseling) Practice Analysis were performed similarly or differently in TGC compared to in person genetic counseling (IPGC). If there were differences noted, we sought to determine the nature of the differences and if additional training might be needed to address them. Eighty eight genetic counselors with experience in TGC completed some or all of the survey. Respondents identified differences in 13 (14.8%) of the 88 tasks studied. The tasks identified as most different in TGC were: "establishing rapport through verbal and nonverbal interactions" (60.2%; 50/83 respondents identified the task as different), "recognizing factors affecting the counseling interaction" (47.8%; 32/67), "assessing client/family emotions, support, etc." (40.1%; 27/66) and "educating clients about basic genetic concepts" (35.6%; 26/73). A slight majority (53.8%; 35/65) felt additional training was needed to communicate information without visual aids and more effectively perform psychosocial assessments. In summary, although a majority of genetic counseling tasks are performed similarly between TGC and IPGC, TGC counselors recognize that specific training in the TGC model may be needed to address the key differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.