Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40411183›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025

Patient-reported outcomes for remote and in-person visits for genetic counseling in adult neurology.

Rachel A Paul, Nareen Babaian, Morgan Brzozowski, Aaron Baldwin, Kelsey Johnson, Meron Azage, Tanya Bardakjian, Thomas F Tropea, Laynie Dratch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rachel A PaulDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-3793-6326
Nareen BabaianDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Morgan BrzozowskiDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-5508-1162
Aaron BaldwinDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8970-1270
Kelsey JohnsonDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-7162-1897
Meron AzageDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-6179-6505
Tanya BardakjianDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0801-2631
Thomas F TropeaDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0766-1496
Laynie DratchDepartment of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2179-3199

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic CounselingNeurologyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicinealternative service deliverygenetic counselinggenetic counseling satisfactionneurogeneticsneurologypatient reported outcomespredictive genetic testingtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID40411183
PMCPMC12102641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.