MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175105777 · doi:10.1007/s10897-015-9912-y

Experience with genetic counseling: the adolescent perspective

2015· article· en· W2175105777 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda Pichini, Cheryl Shuman, Karen Sappleton, Miriam Kaufman, David Chitayat, Riyana Babul‐Hirji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsGenetic counselingQualitative researchPopulationGenetic testingMedicinePsychologyPerspective (graphical)AutonomyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescence is a complex period of development that involves creating a sense of identity, autonomy, relationships and values. This stage of adjustment can be complicated by having a genetic condition. Genetic counseling can play an important role in providing information and support to this patient population; however, resources and guidelines are currently limited. In order to appropriately establish genetic counseling approaches and resource development, we investigated the experiences and perspectives of adolescents with a genetic condition with respect to their genetic counseling interactions. Using a qualitative exploratory approach, eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with adolescents diagnosed with a genetic condition who received genetic counseling between the ages of 12 and 18 years at The Hospital for Sick Children. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using qualitative content analysis, from which three major interrelated themes emerged: 1) understanding the genetic counselor's role; 2) increasing perceived personal control; and 3) adolescent-specific factors influencing adaptation to one's condition. Additionally, a list of suggested tools and strategies for genetic counseling practice were elucidated. Our findings can contribute to the development of an adolescent-focused framework to enhance emerging genetic counseling approaches for this patient population, and can also facilitate the transition process from pediatric to adult care within patient and family-centered contexts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207