ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Addressing family communication in genetic counseling: A scoping review of process studies.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Family-oriented support in genetic counselling: a scoping review of clinical practice and psychotherapeutic interventions.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Addressing family communication in genetic counseling: A scoping review of process studies.Journal of genetic counseling · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Process studies explore the content and dynamics established during genetic counseling (GC), allowing a greater understanding of what happens. No literature review has specifically examined how family communication of genetic information has been addressed in GC process studies. To fill this gap, a scoping review was conducted. Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycInfo were searched, resulting in 21 articles for analysis. Most studies were retrospective (n = 19) and qualitative (n = 15) and involved hereditary cancer syndromes (n = 13). Studies analyzed how family communication of genetic information is addressed in GC by either focusing on patients' experiences and perspectives, or genetic healthcare professionals' (GHP) roles and scope of practice. All studies reported that GHP address family communication with patients, but their practices were heterogeneous and influenced by contextual factors. Practices to address family communication included providing guidance to inform the family (n = 19), materials to support communication (n = 16), psychosocial assessment (n = 11), and additional support (n = 18). Our findings suggest that the approach to family communication in GC draws on both teaching and counseling models, although with greater emphasis on the former. This is consistent with integrated models of GC. Future prospective process studies using observational data could enhance our understanding of patient-professional interactions and their influence on patient decision-making regarding family communication of genetic 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.