FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4246880688> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4246880688 endingPage "4" @default.
• W4246880688 startingPage "4" @default.
• W4246880688 abstract "Welcome to the first issue of the Journal of Genetic Counseling for 2019! Here I highlight two original research articles on genetic counselor practice. Decision-making is a vitally important process in genetic counseling, and for much of its history, genetic counseling has adopted the philosophy of non-directive counseling to assist patients with their decisions. Non-directive counseling achieves its goal by genetic counselors providing information to patients which patients then use to make decisions. In more recent years, a different style of counseling has emerged which promotes shared decision-making. Shared decision-making is a more collaborative style of decision-making and occurs when there are multiple options to choose from, a decision must be made, information provided by the genetic counselor guides patient choices, and patient values and preferences play a central role in identifying the decision. It has been suggested that genetic counselors often use a shared decision-making counseling style; however, there has been little empirical evidence to support or refute this. In this issue, Birch et al report the findings of an elegant study that is the first to assess the prevalence of shared decision-making behaviors used by genetic counselors. The authors recorded 27 high-risk prenatal genetic counseling sessions, and measured 12 shared decision-making behaviors used by the genetic counselors based on the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION12) instrument. The mean overall OPTION12 scores was 42.4%, which may look modest, but is in fact “among the highest scores observed without any specific [shared decision-making] training or decision support tool.” This empirical study provides valuable and strong evidence that genetic counselors use aspects of the shared decision-making style of counseling, at least in this high-risk prenatal setting. Additional research is needed to further explore the prevalence of this counseling style in other settings, and the types of outcomes associated with this style. D'Angelo A, Ormond KE, Magnus D, Tabor HK. Assessing genetic counselors’ experiences with physician aid-in-dying and practice implications. J Genet Couns. 2018;28(1):[pp. 162-171] [10.1002/jgc4.1047]. This paper is a must-read for genetic counselors and genetic counseling students. It provides important background on what physician aid-in-dying is, how eligibility criteria vary within the United States, and clinician and public attitudes toward it. Physician aid-in-dying is an under-studied topic in genetic counseling, which is surprising given the rise of predictive testing and the role of genetic counselors in settings such as oncology and neurology where end-of-life topics would be addressed. D'Angelo and colleagues recognized this gap in the literature and conducted a qualitative study assessing the experiences of 15 genetic counselors with physician aid-in-dying. Because it is a qualitative study, this paper provides rich descriptive text that is compelling to read. Not only does this study demonstrate that patients have brought up physician aid-in-dying to genetic counselors, it also demonstrates that those interviewed felt that genetic counselors have the skills to be able to address patient questions but are not prepared to have these discussions and need additional training." @default.
• W4246880688 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4246880688 creator A5052860956 @default.
• W4246880688 date "2019-02-01" @default.
• W4246880688 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W4246880688 title "Issue Highlights" @default.
• W4246880688 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1105" @default.
• W4246880688 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W4246880688 type Work @default.
• W4246880688 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4246880688 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4246880688 hasAuthorship W4246880688A5052860956 @default.
• W4246880688 hasBestOaLocation W42468806881 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C2779547435 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C75630572 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C80227256 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C15744967 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C199360897 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C2779547435 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C41008148 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C509550671 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C54355233 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C71924100 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C75630572 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C80227256 @default.
• W4246880688 hasConceptScore W4246880688C86803240 @default.
• W4246880688 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W4246880688 hasLocation W42468806881 @default.
• W4246880688 hasOpenAccess W4246880688 @default.
• W4246880688 hasPrimaryLocation W42468806881 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W123334554 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W1978973921 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W1995203571 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W2072582746 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W2073977345 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W2462760464 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W2529932678 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W4246880688 hasRelatedWork W63537597 @default.
• W4246880688 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W4246880688 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4246880688 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4246880688 workType "article" @default.