Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9350816›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical genetics1997

Evaluation of a project to enhance knowledge of hereditary diseases and management.

I R Walpole, C Watson, D Moore, J Goldblatt, C Bower

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical genetics, 1997. 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
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

I R WalpoleGenetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco.
C Watson
D Moore
J Goldblatt
C Bower
King Edward Memorial Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During 1992 and 1993, in a designated suburban area of Perth, Western Australia, information on hereditary disease was provided for health professionals and the general community. This information was in the form of posters, pamphlets, postal flyers and return letter cards, a static display, newspaper articles, advertisements and radio broadcasts, and professional seminars. The aim of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of combined strategies to convey practical information about hereditary disease to the community and health professionals. Multiple measures of response evaluation were used, which included structured questionnaire surveys of health professionals and members of the community before and after the project. In the community surveys, respondents who were female, married, middle aged, and parents, and had a higher level of education or were born in Australia, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom were generally better informed about hereditary diseases. This intervention resulted in only meagre changes in community knowledge about hereditary disease, even though promotional materials were shown to be appropriate. General Practitioners (GPs) and Child Health Nurses (CHNs) were supportive of clinical genetic services and recognised a need for continuation of education in this field. There is a rapidly increasing need for community and health professional comprehension of the applications of the new genetic technology. This project indicates that routine educational and health promotion strategies will not be enough to achieve desired levels of knowledge and attitude change.

Indexed as

Genetic Diseases, InbornHealth EducationProgram EvaluationAdultAttitudeAustraliaData CollectionFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID9350816
PMCPMC1051090
OpenAlexW2121771771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.