Literature DB >> 9355577

Genetic counselling: information given, recall and satisfaction.

S Michie1, V McDonald, T M Marteau.   

Abstract

The aims of this study are to categorise the key points given in genetic counselling, assess the amount and type of information recalled, and examine the relationships between counsellees' knowledge, satisfaction with information received, the meeting of expectations, concern and anxiety. Because of the variety of consultations, a knowledge questionnaire of the key points was constructed for each individual counsellee, with acceptable inter-rater reliability. The information items judged to be the key points in the consultations were assigned to 13 different content categories. Thirty-two counsellees were sent a questionnaire assessing knowledge and other outcomes two to four weeks after attending a genetic counselling consultation. The mean percentage of key points recalled correctly was 76% (s.d. 17%) with 100% recall for family issues and 68-78% recall for genetic or medical information. Knowledge was not associated with satisfaction with information received nor with level of concern or anxiety following genetic counselling. These results suggest the importance of assessing multiple outcomes of genetic counselling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9355577     DOI: 10.1016/s0738-3991(97)00050-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  24 in total

1.  Recommendation recall and satisfaction after attending breast/ovarian cancer risk counseling.

Authors:  Sharon L Bober; Lizbeth A Hoke; Rosemary B Duda; Nadine M Tung
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-04       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Evaluating genetic counseling: client expectations, psychological adjustment and satisfaction with service.

Authors:  Angela Davey; Kristie Rostant; Karen Harrop; Jack Goldblatt; Peter O'Leary
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Risk perception, worry and satisfaction related to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer.

Authors:  Cathrine Bjorvatn; Geir Egil Eide; Berit Rokne Hanestad; Nina Øyen; Odd E Havik; Anniken Carlsson; Gunilla Berglund
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  A systematic review of interventions to improve recall of medical advice in healthcare consultations.

Authors:  Philip W B Watson; Brian McKinstry
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 5.  Assessment of the content and process of genetic counseling: a critical review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Bettina Meiser; Jennifer Irle; Elizabeth Lobb; Kristine Barlow-Stewart
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Genetic Counseling: Clinical Geneticists' Views.

Authors:  S Michie; J A Smith; J Heaversedge; S Read
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Determinants of preferences for genetic counselling in Jewish women.

Authors:  Carmel Apicella; Stuart J Peacock; Lesley Andrews; Katherine Tucker; Agnes Bankier; Mary B Daly; John L Hopper
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  An assessment of risk understanding in Hispanic genetic counseling patients.

Authors:  Jennifer N Eichmeyer; Hope Northrup; Michael A Assel; Thomas J Goka; Dennis A Johnston; Aimee Tucker Williams
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Non-syndromic sensorineural prelingual deafness: the importance of genetic counseling in demystifying parents' beliefs about the cause of their children's deafness.

Authors:  Fidjy Rodrigues; Milena Paneque; Cláudia Reis; Margarida Venâncio; Jorge Sequeiros; Jorge Saraiva
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial protocol.

Authors:  Eleanor Mann; A Toby Prevost; Simon Griffin; Ian Kellar; Stephen Sutton; Michael Parker; Simon Sanderson; Ann Louise Kinmonth; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.