Effectiveness of Telegenetic Counseling for Patients and Families With Suspected Hereditary Cancer: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Telegenetic counseling has attracted attention as a preventive measure against the recent COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review compared telegenetic counseling using videoconferencing versus face-to-face counseling for hereditary cancer. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of telegenetic counseling using videoconferencing versus face-to-face counseling for people with suspected hereditary cancer. Methods A comprehensive literature search was carried out in December 2021 using the databases of the Japan Medical Abstracts Society, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The eligibility criteria were studies in which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs were conducted among patients with suspected hereditary cancer and their families, comparing telegenetic counseling using videoconferencing with face-to-face genetic counseling. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of each RCT study. This study was reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Results Two studies comprising a total of 191 participants were included and used for meta-analysis. Participants were individuals who lived in rural areas or in areas without genetic counselors and were suspected to have breast, colon, ovarian, multiple, or genetic cancer. All outcomes were assessed in only 1 study and their effects could not be discussed explicitly. In one study, there were no significant differences in satisfaction, psychological distress, or a number of genetic tests between face-to-face genetic counseling and telegenetic counseling. The cost per patient for genetic counseling was $106.19 for the telegenetics group and $244.33 for the in-person group. The risk of bias was high in both studies, with a high risk of performance bias, detection bias, and attrition bias. Conclusions The results of the two RCTs were described qualitatively. However, the evidence is limited because of the small number of RCT studies on telegenetic counseling and the high risk of bias. Further accumulation of studies is needed in the future. Conflicts of Interest None declared.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».