Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29350312›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2018

Genesurance Counseling: Patient Perspectives.

Chelsea Wagner, Lauren Murphy, Jacqueline Harkenrider, Sandra Darilek, Eleazar Soto-Torres, Quinn Stein, Jennifer Hoskovec

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Chelsea WagnerDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Chelsea.rickman@uth.tmc.edu.
Lauren MurphyDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Jacqueline HarkenriderDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Sandra DarilekDepartment of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Eleazar Soto-TorresDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Quinn SteinDepartment of Genetic Counseling, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, SD, USA.
Jennifer HoskovecDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic counselors (GCs) have reported an increase in discussion of insurance-related, or "genesurance," topics during genetic counseling sessions. Despite increasing frequency, there have been no studies examining patient expectations of GCs in these discussions. This study aimed to explore patient expectations of GCs in these discussions, as well as examine factors that may impact expectations. A 38-item survey was administered prior to patients receiving prenatal or cancer genetic counseling at 11 clinic sites across UTHealth, Baylor College of Medicine, and Sanford Health, with 360 responses analyzed. Key variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between factors and control for potential confounders. Over 75% of patients expected GCs to discuss genesurance topics during a genetic counseling session. The majority of patients (78%) expected GCs to provide an estimated out-of-pocket cost, know if a test is a covered benefit (77%), and provide referral information for further questions (76%). Two additional expectations, considered to be unrealistic in most clinical settings, included expecting GCs to know the patient's specific insurance plan and coverage information (57%) and provide an exact out-of-pocket cost (41%). Ethnicity was the only significant predictor of response for these two expectations, as African Americans and Hispanics were more likely than Caucasians to have these beliefs. While the patient participants felt that GCs were primarily responsible for initiating these conversations, they also reported a personal sense of responsibility for raising questions. This study demonstrates that patients may expect GCs to address genesurance topics in a genetic counseling session, with specific expectations about the cost and coverage of genetic tests. Further studies will establish the most effective way to communicate this information to patients and examine whether and where within the scope of GC practice, genesurance discussions fall.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPregnancyPrenatal CareSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCancer genetic counselingGenesurance counselingGenetic counselingHealth insuranceInsurance topicsPatient expectationsPrenatal genetic counseling

Identifiers

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.