Identifying mental health services in clinical genetic settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the mental health needs of individuals at risk for adult onset hereditary disorder (AOHD) from the perspective of their genetic service providers, as it is unknown to what extent psychosocial services are required and being met. A mail-out survey was sent to 281 providers on the membership lists of the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors and the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. The survey assessed psychosocial issues that were most commonly observed by geneticists, genetic counsellors (GCs), and nurses as well as availability and types of psychosocial services offered. Of the 129 respondents, half of genetic service providers reported observing signs of depression and anxiety, while 44% noted patients' concerns regarding relationships with family and friends. In terms of providing counselling to patients, as the level of psychological risk increased, confidence in dealing with these issues decreased. In addition, significantly more GCs reported that further training in psychosocial issues would be most beneficial to them if resources were available. As a feature of patient care, it is recommended that gene-based predictive testing include an integrative model of psychosocial services as well as training for genetic service providers in specific areas of AOHD mental health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".