ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2000
A Method for Analyzing Videotaped Genetic Counseling Sessions.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of observational coding systems to assess patient-healthcare professional interactions.Patient education and counseling · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Assessment of the content and process of genetic counseling: a critical review of empirical studies.Journal of genetic counseling · 2008Review
- Communication analysis of BRCA1 genetic counseling.Journal of genetic counseling · 2005Article
- Differences in individual approaches: communication in the familial breast cancer consultation and the effect on patient outcomes.Journal of genetic counseling · 2005Article
- Analyzing the process and content of genetic counseling in familial breast cancer consultations.Journal of genetic counseling · 2004Article
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 describes the development and evaluation of a multi-item scale for analyzing the genetic counseling process, the Manchester Observation Code (MOC) for genetic counseling. The instrument is specific to the field of genetic counseling and is designed for analysis of the communication between counselor and client. Coding is done directly from videotaped sessions. Because communication is the means by which genetic counseling is accomplished, the method measures four relevant components of communication: (1) grammatical form, (2) purpose, (3) subject, and (4) cue source. The instrument enables an observer to code the counselor's statements into these four components. Three videotaped sessions were used to measure interrater reliability, or the consistency of rating for each of the four communication domains using this method. Three videotaped sessions were also used to measure test-retest reliability, or the consistency of the designed method from one time to another. A total of 21 videotaped sessions were tested using the method. A statistical measure of reliability established consistency of the designed method; Cohen's kappa yielded 0.7 for interrater reliability and 0.79 for test-retest reliability. These findings suggest this instrument may be used to identify important elements of the genetic counseling process.
Identifiers
26141185What 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.