Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26264439›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016

How communication of genetic information within the family is addressed in genetic counselling: a systematic review of research evidence.

Álvaro Mendes, Milena Paneque, Liliana Sousa, Angus Clarke, Jorge Sequeiros

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Disclosure of genetic information to family members: a systematic review of normative documents.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Álvaro Mendesi3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, and Centre for Predictive and Preventive Genetics, IBMC -Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Milena Panequei3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, and Centre for Predictive and Preventive Genetics, IBMC -Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Liliana SousaCINTESIS, Center for Health Technology and Services Research, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.
Angus ClarkeInstitute of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.
Jorge Sequeirosi3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, and Centre for Predictive and Preventive Genetics, IBMC -Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Supporting consultands to communicate risk information with their relatives is key to obtaining the full benefits of genetic health care. To understand how health-care professionals address this issue in clinical practice and what interventions are used specifically to assist consultands in their communication of genetic information to appropriate relatives, we conducted a systematic review. Four electronic databases and four subject-specific journals were searched for papers published, in English, between January 1997 and May 2014. Of 2926 papers identified initially, 14 papers met the inclusion criteria for the review and were heterogeneous in design, setting and methods. Thematic data analysis has shown that dissemination of information within families is actively encouraged and supported by professionals. Three overarching themes emerged: (1) direct contact from genetic services: sending letters to relatives of mutation carriers; (2) professionals' encouragement of initially reluctant consultands to share relevant information with at-risk relatives and (3) assisting consultands in communicating genetic information to their at-risk relatives, which included as subthemes (i) psychoeducational guidance and (ii) written information aids. Findings suggest that professionals' practice and interventions are predicated on the need to proactively encourage family communication. We discuss this in the context of what guidance of consultands by professionals might be appropriate, as best practices to facilitate family communication, and of the limits to non-directiveness in genetic counselling.

Indexed as

CommunicationGenetic CounselingFamilyGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHeterozygoteHumansMutationRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID26264439
PMCPMC4755382

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.