Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40801425›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025

Addressing family communication in genetic counseling: A scoping review of process studies.

Maria Barbosa, Milena Paneque, Sofia Fontoura Dias, Filipa Júlio, Jorge Sequeiros, Liliana Sousa, Angus Clarke, Alison Metcalfe, Célia M D Sales, Álvaro Mendes

Abstract readScoping Review
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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

10 authors.

Maria Barbosai3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação Em Saúde, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0009-0008-3590-3847
Milena Panequei3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação Em Saúde, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6535-4315
Sofia Fontoura DiasDepartment of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2938-7486
Filipa JúlioEuropean Huntington Association, Moerbeke-Waas, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6075-6887
Jorge Sequeirosi3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação Em Saúde, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-9846-1037
Liliana SousaDepartment of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3491-7119
Angus ClarkeCardiff University School of Medicine, The Sir Geraint Evans Building, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1200-9286
Alison MetcalfeLOHA Health Ltd, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6466-918X
Célia M D SalesFPCEUP - Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2586-8469
Álvaro Mendesi3S - Instituto de Investigação e Inovação Em Saúde, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8766-7646

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia CEECIND/02615/2017Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia FCT-2022-2022.04025.PTDCFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UIDB/00050/2020
6 · The paper itself

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

CommunicationFamilyGenetic CounselingHumansfamily disclosuregenetic counselinggenetic riskliterature reviewpsychosocial genetics

Identifiers

PMID40801425
PMCPMC12345395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.