Trial reportFamilial cancer2016
Patient and genetic counselor perceptions of in-person versus telephone genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer.
Trial report in Familial cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Virtual Care in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Pooled it
- Randomized trial of proactive rapid genetic counseling versus usual care for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2018Trial
- Perspectives on Telemedicine Visits Reported by Patients With Cancer.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Transforming patient-centered cancer care using telehealth: the MATCHES Center.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024Article
- Article
- Telephone versus in-person genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk: Patient predictors of differential outcomes.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2024Article
- Interdisciplinary risk counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: real-world data from a specialized center.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- The growing needs of genetic counselling-Feasibility in utilization of tele-genetic counselling in Asia and Hong Kong.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Sudden shift to remote genetic counseling during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences of genetics professionals in Italy.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- A thematic analysis of health information technology use among cancer genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Prospective Feasibility Trial of a Novel Strategy of Facilitated Cascade Genetic Testing Using Telephone Counseling.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Article
- Genome-wide bioinformatics analysis reveals CTCFL is upregulated in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer.Oncology letters · 2019Article
- Genetic counseling referral for ovarian cancer patients: a call to action.Familial cancer · 2019Article
- Racial/Ethnic Disparities in BRCA Counseling and Testing: a Narrative Review.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2019Review
- LINC01127 promotes the development of ovarian tumors by regulating the cell cycle.American journal of translational research · 2019Article
- Counselees' Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Telephone genetic counseling (TC) for high-risk women interested in BRCA1/2 testing has been shown to yield positive outcomes comparable to usual care (UC; in-person) genetic counseling. However, little is known about how genetic counselors perceive the delivery of these alternate forms of genetic counseling. As part of a randomized trial of TC versus UC, genetic counselors completed a 5-item genetic counselor process questionnaire (GCQ) assessing key elements of pre-test sessions (information delivery, emotional support, addressing questions and concerns, tailoring of session, and facilitation of decision-making) with the 479 female participants (TC, N = 236; UC, N = 243). The GCQ scores did not differ for TC vs. UC sessions (t (477) = 0.11, p = 0.910). However, multivariate analysis showed that participant race/ethnicity significantly predicted genetic counselor perceptions (β = 0.172, p < 0.001) in that the GCQ scores were lower for minorities in TC and UC. Exploratory analyses suggested that GCQ scores may be associated with patient preference for UC versus TC (t (79) = 2.21, p = 0.030). Additionally, we found that genetic counselor ratings of session effectiveness were generally concordant with patient perceptions of the session. These data indicate that genetic counselors perceive that key components of TC can be delivered as effectively as UC, and that these elements may contribute to specific aspects of patient satisfaction. However, undefined process differences may be present which account for lower counselor perceptions about the effectiveness of their sessions with minority women (i.e., those other than non-Hispanic Whites). We discuss other potential clinical and research implications of our findings.
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.