Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34265143›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2021

Transitioning to telegenetics in the COVID-19 era: Patient satisfaction with remote genetic counseling in adult neurology.

Laynie Dratch, Rachel A Paul, Aaron Baldwin, Morgan Brzozowski, Pedro Gonzalez-Alegre, Thomas F Tropea, Anna Raper, Tanya Bardakjian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Laynie DratchDepartment of Neurology, Neurogenetics Translational Center of Excellence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Rachel A PaulDepartment of Neurology, Neurogenetics Translational Center of Excellence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Aaron BaldwinDepartment of Neurology, Neurogenetics Translational Center of Excellence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Morgan BrzozowskiDepartment of Neurology, Neurogenetics Translational Center of Excellence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Pedro Gonzalez-AlegreDepartment of Neurology, Neurogenetics Translational Center of Excellence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Thomas F TropeaDepartment of Neurology, Neurogenetics Translational Center of Excellence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Anna RaperDepartment of Neurology, Neurogenetics Translational Center of Excellence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Tanya BardakjianDepartment of Neurology, Neurogenetics Translational Center of Excellence, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0801-2631

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly changed genetic counseling services across the United States. At the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), a large academic hospital in an urban setting, nearly all genetic counseling (GC) visits for adult-onset disorders within the Department of Neurology were conducted via secure videoconferencing (telegenetics) or telephone between March and December 2020. Although telemedicine services have been steadily emerging, many clinical programs, including the neurogenetics program at UPenn, had not built infrastructure or widely utilized these services prior to the pandemic. Thus, little is known about patient attitudes toward receiving clinical GC services remotely. From May 18 to October 18, 2020, all individuals seen remotely for GC in adult neurology via telephone or telegenetics were surveyed about their satisfaction with telehealth GC (N = 142), with a response rate of 42% (N = 60/142). Telephone and telegenetics services were referred to as 'telehealth' in the surveys to capture patient perspectives on all remote GC services, though the majority (N = 49/60) of these visits were completed via telegenetics. Surveys included the modified telehealth usability questionnaire (MTUQ), genetic counseling satisfaction scale (GCSS), and novel questions about future telehealth use. Preliminary results suggest that patients were satisfied with receiving remote GC services in adult neurology, with most participants strongly agreeing to all items about satisfaction with telehealth. Just 2% of participants preferred only in-person visits in the future, but every participant was willing to consider using telehealth for future visits if their genetic counselor felt it was appropriate. Most participants preferred a hybrid model (73%), and some (25%) preferred only telehealth for future visits. Additionally, we found no differences in satisfaction with remote services based on visit type (initial vs. results disclosure) nor age. We conclude that remote GC is an acceptable method for the provision of services in adult neurology that is well-received by patients.

Indexed as

COVID-19Genetic CounselingNeurologyPatient SatisfactionTelemedicineAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsYoung AdultCOVID-19genetic counselingneurogeneticstelegeneticstelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34265143
PMCPMC8427091

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.