ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2026
To refer or not to refer? Exploring the cognitive process of genetic counselors' decision to refer a patient to another professional.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic Counselors (GCs) hold the dual responsibility to engage in patient-centered psychosocial counseling and to recognize when a patient's needs require referral to another healthcare professional (HCP). While previous work has shown that GCs use a variety of patient factors to determine when they could benefit from additional supportive services, we sought to better understand how GCs determine whether to refer a patient to another HCP or engage in more complex psychosocial counseling. Utilizing a multimethods approach, we used two sets of surveys to learn about our participants but ultimately prioritized the qualitative data from in-depth semistructured interviews with 15 participants (N = 15). Initial data collection and analysis relied on constructivist interpretive frameworks of grounded theory, which supported learning directly from participants while maintaining our ability to delve into issues raised by the participants. An iterative process of coding, reviewing, memoing, and testing resulted in the development of several conceptual models of possible theories. Through continued review of the data and guided by an interpretivism paradigm, we elected to honor the breadth of information shared by participants, abandoning our initial goal of defining a single theory to instead define three core conceptual categories related to GCs' consideration of providing psychosocial counseling or referring: (1) For GCs, it's personal! GC beliefs in themselves, their personal identities, and their conceptualization of the role of a "GC" influence their engagement in psychosocial assessment and support; (2) Training matters, but experience is key; and (3) Referrals occur when GCs are aware of and trust that another HCP/resource will be a good fit for a patient's need and that a patient can actually access it. These findings suggest that GC confidence in managing patient care evolves with experience and highlight the value of ongoing skill development for all practitioners.
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.