ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2021
Patient Satisfaction with Private Genetic Counselling for Familial Cancer in Western Australia: A Prospective Audit.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Team-Based Genetic Counseling Services in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Development and verification of the Korean version of the genetic counseling self-efficacy scale.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Educational videos in genetic counseling: Meeting patients where they are?Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- The importance of on-site genetic counseling for prospective assisted reproductive technology patients.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid increase in demand for cancer genetic testing in Australia led to the establishment of private Familial Cancer Clinics (FCCs) as alternatives to public sector FCCs. Australian studies conducted in the public sector have shown high patient satisfaction with genetic counselling. No study has investigated patient satisfaction with genetic counselling in the private sector in Australia. Our aim was to assess patient satisfaction with genetic counselling for familial cancer within the private healthcare sector of Western Australia. MATERIALS AND
methodsQuestionnaires were given to all eligible patients after their first genetic counselling appointment, consisting of the 12-item Satisfaction with Genetic Counselling Scale and an added question regarding the perceived value for the financial cost. Outcomes assessed included instrumental satisfaction, affective satisfaction, procedural satisfaction and perceived value for financial cost. Participants scored the representative questions from one to four (unsatisfied - highly satisfied).
resultsTwo hundred and twenty patients were given the questionnaire, 75 questionnaires were returned (response rate 34%), and 73 were appropriately completed and analysed. Overall, seventy (96%) participants were highly satisfied with the genetic counsellor's explanation; seventy-four (98%) were highly satisfied/satisfied with the reassurance provided. Sixty-eight participants (93%) were highly satisfied/satisfied with the help received. Seventy-two (99%) participants had their expectations met and sixty-nine (95%) participants were highly satisfied with the service. Sixty-eight (93%) participants were highly satisfied/satisfied with the cost of private genetic counselling. Sixty-one (83.6%) proceeded to genetic testing.
conclusionsPrivate genetic counselling was considered highly satisfactory, and the cost considered acceptable by most participants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.