Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30683928›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019

A validated PROM in genetic counselling: the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale.

Jan S Voorwinden, Mirjam Plantinga, Wim Krijnen, Margreet Ausems, Nine Knoers, Mary Velthuizen, Erwin Birnie, Anneke M Lucassen, Irene M van Langen, Adelita V Ranchor

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Using Rasch measurement theory to explore the fitness for purpose of the genetic counseling outcome scale: a tale of two scales.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Jan S VoorwindenDepartment of Health Psychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.s.voorwinden@umcg.nl.
Mirjam PlantingaDepartment of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Wim KrijnenDepartment of Statistics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Margreet AusemsDepartment of Genetics, University of Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nine KnoersDepartment of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Mary VelthuizenDepartment of Genetics, University of Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Erwin BirnieDepartment of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anneke M LucassenFaculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Ethics and Law, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3324-4338
Irene M van LangenDepartment of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Adelita V RanchorDepartment of Health Psychology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient empowerment has been identified as a key outcome goal in genetic counselling, and a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) has been developed to measure empowerment in genetic services: the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS). Here we validate the GCOS for a large and diverse Dutch study sample of 2194 patients referred to two clinical genetic centres for counselling about a wide range of conditions (heart disease, neurological disorders, cancer, congenital syndromes, intellectual disability and prenatal pathology). Our results suggest that the GCOS consists of a hierarchical 6-factor structure, with a main scale for empowerment and six subscales: uncertainty about heredity, hope, negative emotions, knowledge about the condition, knowledge about genetic services and uncertainty about the treatment. Six of the original 24 GCOS items were removed due to low factor loadings and small inter-item correlations. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the main scale and most subscales were satisfactory. Convergent validity was confirmed by moderate positive and moderate/strong negative associations between the GCOS main scale and other validated outcome measures. Responsiveness was comparable to that of other validated outcome measures. We saw significant improvement in the GCOS main scale and all the subscales after the first genetic counselling session. This study contributes to the international validation process of the GCOS, with the ultimate goal of using this instrument as a PROM, with empowerment as an outcome measure, to evaluate and improve the quality of genetic counselling in various clinical genetics settings.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30683928
PMCPMC6461966

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.