ArticleJournal of community genetics2024
A qualitative exploration of interprofessional collaborative practice between genetic counselors and mental health providers.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Genetic services in Pakistan: a review highlighting limitations and opportunities for improvement.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic counselors (GCs) typically provide short-term counseling and assess patient needs, including the need for ongoing psychosocial support. While some patients may benefit from a referral to a mental health provider (MHP), previous research identified barriers to this process due to patient characteristics, the GC work environment, and MHP availability. Adoption of interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP), a model where multiple healthcare professionals from diverse training disciplines collaborate to deliver patient care, may mitigate these barriers. Evidence suggests that IPCP both increases patient satisfaction and reduces healthcare spending. Anecdotal evidence suggests that GCs and MHPs may use IPCP in select institutions, but there is limited research examining these relationships. This study aims to characterize the benefits, barriers, and limitations of current IPCP practice between GCs and MHPs. Six semi-structured interviews with GCs and MHPs were completed and analyzed thematically. Four themes emerged: (1) mental health concerns in GC sessions and GC scope of practice; (2) establishing and maintaining IPCP between GCs and MHPs; (3) benefits, barriers, and limitations of IPCP; and (4) next steps to develop future IPCP. The findings suggest that there are varying approaches to IPCP that are influenced by perceptions of provider scope of practice. IPCP may mitigate some previously described referral barriers related to logistics, and the availability of trusted MHPs with knowledge of a GCs specialty, thereby improving patient and provider satisfaction.
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.