ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Patient-reported outcomes for remote and in-person visits for genetic counseling in adult neurology.
Article 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 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.
- From tradition to transformation: evolving models of care in clinical genetics.Current opinion in pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At our center, we offer clinical genetic counseling (GC) visits for adults with a personal and/or family history of neurologic disease. Here, we report patient experience and outcomes from different visit modalities (e.g., in person, videoconferencing, and telephone) in clinical neurogenetics. Individuals who completed a GC visit in the Neurology Department at the University of Pennsylvania between January 2021 and January 2023 were surveyed after an initial evaluation and/or a disclosure visit. Questionnaires included items validated to measure satisfaction with GC, satisfaction with telehealth, and patient empowerment. Two hundred and ninety-nine individuals submitted 347 survey responses, representing a response rate of 42% (initial) and 31% (disclosure) for each of the surveys. Most responders completed their initial visit in person, while most completed their disclosure visit remotely via videoconferencing or telephone. Patient satisfaction with GC did not differ between visit modalities. For initial visits, telehealth satisfaction was higher for visits regarding the consideration of predictive testing compared to diagnostic testing. For follow-up visits, telehealth satisfaction was higher for videoconferencing compared to telephone disclosure. A majority of responders (69%-78%) reported interest in utilizing telehealth in the future if their genetic counselor thought it was appropriate and a majority of responders (65%-79%) indicated a preference for a combination of in-person and telehealth visits. Individuals who completed an initial visit in person were more likely to decline interest in future telehealth use. This study allowed for some comparison between visit modalities, but more research is needed to understand individuals' preferences and guide recommendations for GC service delivery.
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.