Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31189929›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2019

Challenges and strategies proposed by genetic health professionals to assist with family communication.

Alison L Young, Phyllis N Butow, Katherine M Tucker, Claire E Wakefield, Emma Healey, Rachel Williams

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Disclosure of genetic information to family members: a systematic review of normative documents.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: patient recommendations for improved risk communication.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alison L YoungThe University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), Sydney, NSW, Australia. ayou1666@uni.sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0810-4256
Phyllis N ButowThe University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Katherine M TuckerPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Claire E WakefieldBehavioural Sciences Unit proudly supported by the Kids with Cancer Foundation, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
Emma HealeyIllawarra Cancer Care Centre, Wollongong Hospital, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Rachel WilliamsPrince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AUWollongong Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hereditary genetic conditions have implications for the whole family and therefore genetic health professionals (GHPs) interact with multiple family members, sometimes individually and sometimes in aggregate. Family communication is important to ensure dissemination of genetic information to potentially affected relatives and to facilitate supportive family interactions around genetic testing and risk management decisions. Yet, little is known about how GHPs perceive and manage these interactions. A total of 73 GHPs working across Australian cancer genetic clinics participated in semi-structured focus groups or interviews to elucidate what aspects of family communication they found most challenging, the strategies they used, and whether current academic training provides sufficient guidance to address familial concerns. Patients' lack of understanding about the importance of communicating genetic information to at-risk relatives was the most common challenge reported. GHPs reported that the patients' concern for their families' emotional responses as well as wider family system challenges (e.g. estrangement) affected family communication. Common strategies during consultations included structuring appointments logistically to account for family dynamics and post-consultation use of family letters and follow-up appointments. GHPs generally felt equipped with the skills and training provided to address patient concerns, but also desired upskilling in techniques relating to systemic family issues and behavioural change. Reflective practice strategies were requested by geneticists and nurses to foster therapeutic skill usage. Additional family therapy training while on the job may be beneficial in order to meet current challenges faced in clinical practice and can be provided as further professional development.

Indexed as

CommunicationFamilyHealth PersonnelPhysician's RoleAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesGenetic ServicesGenetic TestingHumansNeoplasmsNursesPhysiciansReferral and ConsultationRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID31189929
PMCPMC6871519
OpenAlexW2951848033

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.