ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2024
Non-genetic physicians' knowledge, attitudes and behavior towards medical genetics.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic literacy assessment among medical students using the Indonesian adaptation of the University of North Carolina Genomic Knowledge Scale.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Non-genetic physicians' self-assessment of knowledge and confidence toward genetic testing and counseling: a national survey in a high consanguineous population.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Incorporating genetics and genetic counselling in neurology clinics: a survey of neurologists' perceptions and current practices.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- Case-based genomics education and training of neurologists: an Egyptian initiative.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- The importance of genetic counselling for turner syndrome transition.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2025Review
- Preparing tomorrow's doctors for the genomics era: A nationwide survey of UK medical students.Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To examine the knowledge, behavior, and attitudes toward medical genetics among obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and neurology residents and specialists, who encounter the highest number of patients with specific genetic disorders, in their everyday practice. The cross-sectional study involved 182 nongenetic residents and specialists in the Republic of Croatia, who completed a validated online questionnaire anonymously and voluntarily. The questionnaire consisted of five groups of questions: general information, knowledge, behavior in practice, attitude toward genetic testing, and additional education in medical genetics. The median score for overall knowledge of medical genetics was 70.2% among obstetrician-gynecologists, 80.5% among pediatricians, and 76.7% among neurologists (P < 0.001, lowest median in obstetrician-gynecologists). When asked about their behavior in daily practice, around 90% of respondents admitted the possibility of not recognizing patients with genetic disorders, which is why more than 90% emphasized the need for additional education in medical genetics. In addition, the respondents showed a positive attitude toward genetic testing, but they did not feel educated enough to interpret the results of genetic testing. The results highlight the need for further genetic education of non-genetic health professionals, which would lead to greater confidence and ability to recognize patients with genetic disorders, select the appropriate genetic testing method and achieve more efficient communication with patients.
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.