Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35906848›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2022

Motivational interviewing for genetic counseling: A unified framework for persuasive and equipoise conversations.

Ken Resnicow, Emerson Delacroix, Gabriela Chen, Sarah Austin, Elena Stoffel, Erika N Hanson, Lynette Hammond Gerido, Kimberly A Kaphingst, Beverly M Yashar, Monica Marvin and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ken ResnicowUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1416-9627
Emerson DelacroixUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1045-7963
Gabriela ChenUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Sarah AustinRogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4484-9746
Elena StoffelRogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Erika N HansonDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5952-0962
Lynette Hammond GeridoUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2243-6203
Kimberly A KaphingstDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2668-9080
Beverly M YasharDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0807-3258
Monica MarvinRogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7697-2648
Jennifer J GriggsUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1598-4562
Deborah CragunUniversity of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3620-2857
University of Michigan · USUniversity of South Florida · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Leveraging an electronic medical record infrastructure to identify primary care patients eligible for genetic testing for hereditary cancer and evaluate novel cancer genetics service delivery modelsU01CA232826 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI KAPHINGST, KIMBERLY A, SIGIREDDI, MEENAKSHI · 2018 to 2022
$5.5M
Innovative Approaches to Expand Cancer Genetic Screening and Testing for Patients & Families in a Statewide Oncology Network through Community, State, & Payer PartnershipsU01CA232827 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GRIGGS, JENNIFER J, RESNICOW, KEN A. · 2020 to 2020
$4.0M
FITting noninvasive testing into Lynch syndrome colorectal cancer surveillance: a multicenter, prospective trialR01CA287257 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Fay Kastrinos, Sonia Kupfer · 2024 to 2026
$3.4M
University of Michigan Training Program in ELSI ResearchT32HG010030 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ROBERTS, SCOTT · 2018 to 2022
$962k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA287257NCI NIH HHS U01 CA232826NCI NIH HHS U01 CA232827NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG010030NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic counselors (GCs) have traditionally been trained to adopt a position of equipoise or clinical neutrality. They provide information, answer questions, address barriers, and engage in shared decision-making, but generally, they do not prescribe a genetic test. Historically, GCs have generally been trained not to persuade the ambivalent or resistant patient. More recently, however, there has been discussion regarding when a greater degree of persuasion or directionality may be appropriate within genetic counseling (GC) and what role MI may play in this process. The role for "persuasive GC" is based on the premise that some genetic tests provide actionable information that would clearly benefit patients and families by impacting treatment or surveillance. For other tests, the benefits are less clear as they do not directly impact patient care or the benefits may be more subjective in nature, driven by patient values or psychological needs. For the former, we propose that GCs may adopt a more persuasive clinical approach while for the latter, a more traditional equipoise stance may be more appropriate. We suggest that motivational interviewing (MI) could serve as a unifying counseling model that allows GCs to handle both persuasive and equipoise encounters. For clearly beneficial tests, while directional, the MI encounter can still be non-directive, autonomy-supportive, and patient-centered. MI can also be adapted for equipoise situations, for example, placing less emphasis on eliciting and strengthening change talk as that is more a behavior change strategy than a shared decision-making strategy. The core principles and strategies of MI, such as autonomy support, evocation, open questions, reflective listening, and affirmation would apply to both persuasive and equipoise encounters. Key issues that merit discussion include how best to train GCs both during their initial and post-graduate education.

Indexed as

Motivational InterviewingCommunicationCounselingGenetic CounselingHumansPersuasive Communicationcounseling techniquesdecision-makingeducationprofessional development

Identifiers

PMID35906848
PMCPMC9796431
OpenAlexW4288749646

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.