Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26204965›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2016

Defining Our Clinical Practice: The Identification of Genetic Counseling Outcomes Utilizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model.

Krista Redlinger-Grosse, Patricia McCarthy Veach, Stephanie Cohen, Bonnie S LeRoy, Ian M MacFarlane, Heather Zierhut

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genetic counseling globally: Where are we now?American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2018
    Article
  16. Patient-Centered Care in Breast Cancer Genetic Clinics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Krista Redlinger-GrosseDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, 250 Education Sciences Building, 56 E. River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. redli009@umn.edu.
Patricia McCarthy VeachDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, 250 Education Sciences Building, 56 E. River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Stephanie CohenCancer Genetics Risk Assessment Program, St. Vincent Hospital, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Bonnie S LeRoyDepartment of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, Institute of Human Genetics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Ian M MacFarlaneDepartment of Psychology, Austin College, Sherman, TX, USA.
Heather ZierhutDepartment of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, Institute of Human Genetics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for evidence-based medicine, including comparative effectiveness studies and patient-centered outcomes research, has become a major healthcare focus. To date, a comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes, as espoused by genetic counselors, has not been established and thus, identification of outcomes unique to genetic counseling services has become a priority for the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The purpose of this study was to take a critical first step at identifying a more comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes. This paper describes the results of a focus group study using the Reciprocal-Engagement Model (REM) as a framework to characterize patient-centered outcomes of genetic counseling clinical practice. Five focus groups were conducted with 27 peer nominated participants who were clinical genetic counselors, genetic counseling program directors, and/or outcomes researchers in genetic counseling. Members of each focus group were asked to identify genetic counseling outcomes for four to five of the 17 goals of the REM. A theory-driven, thematic analysis of focus group data yielded 194 genetic counseling outcomes across the 17 goals. Participants noted some concerns about how genetic counseling outcomes will be measured and evaluated given varying stakeholders and the long-term nature of genetic concerns. The present results provide a list of outcomes for use in future genetic counseling outcomes research and for empirically-supported clinical interventions.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdultEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFocus GroupsGenetic CounselingHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareFocus groupGenetic counselingGoalsOutcomesOutcomes researchReciprocal-engagement model

Identifiers

PMID26204965

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.