ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Exploring the potential usefulness of the GCOS-16 for expanded applications.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. 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.
- Editorial Déjà Vu: This time, it's actually 'what's new in EJHG in May 2025?'European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale-24 (GCOS-24) measures empowerment reliably in the context of genetic services, but its potential utility is constrained by some of its features. Using Rasch Measurement Theory, the GCOS-16 was developed: eight items were removed and the Likert scale collapsed from seven response options to three. The GCOS-16 has improved performance, and potential for usefulness beyond its original design i.e., identifying/triaging patients who may benefit most, and comparing genetic counseling (GC) to non-GC interventions. In this study, using the GCOS-24 data collected from a psychiatric GC clinic, we aimed to use a statistical method to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the GCOS-16, and to examine whether the GCOS-16, or any individual items or subdomains could be used to identify patients who would most benefit from GC. The GCOS-24 data (24-items, 7-point Likert scale) from 307 charts were transformed into the GCOS-16 scoring (16 items, 3-point Likert scale). The GCOS-16 scores increased from pre- to post-GC (p < 0.001, d = 0.935), and the MCID was determined to be an increase of 2.5 points. There were significant differences between pre- to post-GC for all items and subdomains except for item #6. Patients receiving in-person GC were more likely to meet the MCID than those receiving service by telephone or telehealth (p < 0.001). Our data demonstrate that the GCOS-16 is sensitive to change in empowerment without ceiling effects - this could be used to triage patients for GC, and to compare GC to non-GC interventions.
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.