Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29362948›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2018

Genetic Counselors' Experiences and Interest in Telegenetics and Remote Counseling.

Heather A Zierhut, Ian M MacFarlane, Zahra Ahmed, Jill Davies

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

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Videoconferencing to deliver genetics services: a systematic review of telegenetics in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genetic Services in Appalachia Conference Series.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heather A ZierhutDepartment of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 6-160 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. zier0034@umn.edu.
Ian M MacFarlaneDepartment of Psychology, Elizabethtown College, Elizabethtown, PA, 17022, USA.
Zahra AhmedDepartment of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 6-160 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Jill DaviesGeneMatters, LLC, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
University of Minnesota · USElizabethtown College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2009, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Service (NSGC) Delivery Model Task Force defined genetic counseling service delivery models including telephone (genetic counseling provided remotely by telephone) and telegenetics (counseling provided remotely using videoconferencing). Little is known about the experience of genetic counselors practicing telemedicine in the USA. We sought to evaluate perceived satisfaction, advantages, disadvantages, and barriers to the practice and implementation of telegenetics by practicing genetic counselors. A 21-question online survey was distributed via the NSGC's member directory. Descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis were used to analyze data. A total of 344 surveys were completed of which 235 (68.3%) respondents had delivered genetic counseling via telemedicine and 109 (36.6%) had not. Overall genetic counseling providers who had provided telegenetics were satisfied or very satisfied with their position (91%) and those who were not performing telegenetics were at least slightly interested in a telehealth position (92%).The most common appealing reasons for working in or wanting to work in telemedicine included an innovative approach to healthcare delivery, aspects of remote positions such as the ability to work from home, and flexibility of hours. Unappealing characteristics of telemedicine included the inability to see nonverbals, limited psychosocial counseling, and limited social interaction with colleague that is associated with remote positions. Barriers to implementation of telegenetics were noted by 53% of respondents with the largest barrier being billing and reimbursement. The results of this work suggest that telegenetics service organizations could consider increasing social interactions, attempting to use the preferred method of care (video) to increase ability to see nonverbals, offering flexible work hours, and allowing time to address psychosocial issues as they arise in consultations.

Indexed as

AdultCounselorsGenetic CounselingHumansJob SatisfactionMaleReferral and ConsultationSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineTelephoneVideoconferencingAlternative service delivery modelsGenetic counselingTelegeneticsTelehealthTelemedicineTelephone counseling

Identifiers

PMID29362948
OpenAlexW2784613366

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.