MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2072895839 · doi:10.1007/s10897-009-9255-7

Lost in Translation: Limitations of a Universal Approach in Genetic Counseling

2009· editorial· en· W2072895839 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamid Pour‐Jafari, Bahareh Pourjafari

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2009
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGenetic counselingGenetic testingPsychological interventionMedicineMedical educationHealth carePsychologyNursingFamily medicineGeneticsPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In countries with a well-developed genetic counseling profession, genetic counselors receive specialized graduate training that includes the study of genetic diseases and how those diseases run in families, and supervised genetic counseling practice. In addition they usually work as part of a health care team in conjunction with other trained specialists to help families make informed decisions about their genetic risk. They also work as patient advocates, helping individuals receive additional support and services for their health care needs. In contrast, in some developing countries physicians, human geneticists, and nurses who do not have specialized training in all of these domains, provide genetic counseling services. And in some cases, they have no academic training courses specific to genetic counseling. Genetic counseling is a complex activity requiring counselors to not only have extensive knowledge of human genetics and well-honed counseling skills, but also to be able to apply their knowledge and skills in ethically and culturally sensitive ways. For instance, genetic counselors should tailor their interventions to each client's situation, discussing the client's family history and test results in detail, explaining when and how genetic testing may not be appropriate for their situation, and informing them of other options to reduce their risk or lifestyle changes that may help their situation. Sometimes certain options clash with client's cultural and/or religious beliefs (e.g., having ovaries removed in women at risk for ovarian cancer, or raising termination of a pregnancy as an option), and counselors should be able to anticipate these conflicts. Another facet of the complexity of genetic counseling is that it is a two-way process; the only way counseling can be effective is if clients engage in ways that allow genetic counselors to understand them, that is, disclosing all relevant information to the best of their knowledge, and being open to exploring options. In an ideal genetic counseling process, the client trusts the counselor (and other medical team members who often participate in designing an action plan for continued medical management), and thus feels comfortable providing information and participating in decision-making. To promote this ideal goal, genetic counselors should be familiar with their clients’ socioeconomic situations, cultures, religions, values, and so on. There is a substantial and growing body of genetic counseling literature. A majority of these books and scientific papers are authored by western scientists, and usually they are most helpful for practitioners and clients in their own countries. Little explicit attention is given to the fact that those materials, in almost all cases, are translated verbatim into other languages and considered as “standards” for practice in developing countries, despite the often deep differences among cultures. An obvious risk of directly generalizing this literature to genetic counseling practice in non-western countries is that the counseling will be ineffective. Furthermore, generalization of certain literature to other western countries may also be problematic with respect to its accuracy and utility (e.g., the United States and Canada have different health care systems). Moreover, even generalization of findings within the region in which a study was conducted is limited in countries that have multicultural populations (e.g., Australia, U.S., Canada). We further suggest the World Health Organization (WHO) provide leadership in these international efforts. The WHO, a specialized agency of the United Nations, serves as a coordinating authority on international public health (Wikipedia, 2009).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,773
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Genetic CounselingMême sujetBRCA gene mutations in cancerTravaux en français237 207