ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2024
Picture this: Evaluating the efficacy of genetic counseling visual aids.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Impact of Screen-Sharing Visual Aids during Genomic Results Disclosure via Telehealth in Diverse Families in the TeleKidSeq Pilot Study.Public health genomics · 2025Trial
- Health literacy for patient education and counseling in the genomic era: challenges and perspectives.Korean journal of family medicine · 2025Article
- Preventing fraudulent research participation: Methodological strategies and ethical impacts.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Unveiling genetic counseling skills: Developing an online training course and analyzing counselor communication practices.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Picture this: Evaluating the efficacy of genetic counseling visual aids.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Visual aids have been validated as effective tools for educating patients in a variety of medical settings. However, research exploring the efficacy and potential benefit of genetic counseling visual aids is lacking. To begin to address this gap, this study assessed participant knowledge of genetic counseling concepts after viewing either visual or non-visual educational content. Participants were recruited from the general population using the crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were carried out to evaluate differences in knowledge survey scores between the visual and non-visual groups, and Poisson regression models were fitted to evaluate these differences across a variety of demographic backgrounds. The visual group had equal or higher scores than the non-visual group across all analyses. The difference in group scores was statistically significant for autosomal recessive inheritance knowledge scores (p < 0.05). In addition, this difference was approaching significance for higher-level knowledge scores (p = 0.05) and total knowledge scores in individuals who have not completed post-secondary education (p = 0.05). These results indicate that visual aids improve knowledge of specific genetic counseling concepts such as inheritance patterns; the education of which is often integral to genetic counseling. These results also indicate that visual aids may facilitate a deeper understanding of genetic counseling concepts and may be particularly valuable for individuals with lower educational backgrounds. Together, the results of this study support the inclusion of visual aids in genetic counseling education to help improve patient understanding and the accessibility of genetic healthcare information.
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.