Trial reportJournal of genetic counseling2025
Randomized control trial comparing genetic counseling service delivery models in an underserved population.
Trial report in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. 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.
- Randomized control trial comparing genetic counseling service delivery models in an underserved population.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Trial
- When screentime fails: initiative to improve completion of hereditary cancer genetic testing after telemedicine counseling.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Clinical application of fetal Nuchal Translucency combined with noninvasive prenatal testing in screening chromosome abnormalities.PloS one · 2026Article
- Large-Scale Population Screening forBreast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This randomized controlled trial compares outcomes of telephone versus in-person genetic counseling service models in underserved, bilingual patient populations referred for cancer genetic counseling. Between 2022 and 2023, a two-arm (telephone vs. in-person genetic counseling) prospective, randomized controlled study with 201 participants was conducted at two county hospital cancer genetics clinics. Primary outcomes included comparison of pre- and post-genetic counseling genetics knowledge (Multi-dimensional Model of Informed Choice, MMIC), genetic counseling visit satisfaction (Genetic Counseling Satisfaction Scale, GCSS), and genetic counseling visit completion rates. Secondary outcomes included comparison of genetic testing attitudes and informed choice (MMIC), genetic counseling-specific empowerment (Genomic Outcomes Scale, GOS), and genetic testing completion and cancellation/failure rates, using linear regression models (significance ≤0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between arms in pre/post-genetic counseling MMIC knowledge and attitude, GOS or GCSS scores or genetic counseling completion. While more participants in the telephone versus in-person arm made an informed choice about testing (52.5% v. 39.0%, p = 0.0552), test completion was lower (74% v. 100%, p < 0.05) for this group. Genetic counseling completion rates and MMIC knowledge and attitude, GOS, and GCSS scores suggest telephone genetic counseling is comparable to in-person genetic counseling for underserved populations. Higher informed choice scores and significantly lower testing completion rates for telephone visits require further study.
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.