ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2016
Assessment of the Readability of Genetic Counseling Patient Letters.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensiveness, quality, and readability of non-invasive prenatal testing information on Japanese medical institution websites.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Adapting mainstreaming genetic education and clinical communication materials for cancer patients of varying backgrounds.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- What kind of information is requested by patients and families with genetic disorders? : The analysis of an online patient community in South Korea.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Putting control into parents' hands: Parent experiences with a genomic results e-booklet.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Written communication of whole genome sequencing results in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service: a multi-centre service evaluation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Article
- Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?Journal of genetic counseling · 2022Article
- "You Always Have It in the Back of Your Mind"-Feelings, Coping, and Support Needs of Women with Pathogenic Variants in Moderate-Risk Genes for Hereditary Breast Cancer Attending Genetic Counseling in Germany: A Qualitative Interview Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Development of Written Materials for Participants in an Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Screening Trial.Journal of patient experience · 2022Article
- Understanding the Return of Genomic Sequencing Results Process: Content Review of Participant Summary Letters in the eMERGE Research Network.Journal of personalized medicine · 2020Article
- Patients' willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: Mention it again.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals.Journal of community genetics · 2018Article
- Limitations and Pitfalls of Using Family Letters to Communicate Genetic Risk: a Qualitative Study with Patients and Healthcare Professionals.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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient letters are a powerful tool that genetic counselors use to communicate with their patients. Patient letters are often sent to provide information on a new diagnosis, reiterate test results, and to serve as a permanent record of the visit. Patient letters, however, are only helpful if the patients can understand them. More than 50 % of the US population reads below a 9th grade reading level and over one-third of the population has low health literacy skills. In this study we evaluate the readability of genetic counseling patient letters by assessing reading level, image use, and terminology use. One hundred forty-nine genetic counselors participated in the survey and of these, 79 submitted a sample patient letter. Analyses of the letters revealed a mean reading level of 10.93. On average, 6 genetic terms were included in each letter, and only 25 % of these terms were defined. Analyses of survey responses revealed over 75 % of the genetic counselors did not include images in their patient letters. These results indicate there is room for improvement in order to make genetic counseling patient letters more accessible to the general population.
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.