MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2675603106 · doi:10.1007/s10897-017-0121-8

“If It Helps, It's Worth a Try”: an Investigation of Perceptions and Attitudes about Genetic Counseling among Southern Manitoba Hutterites

2017· article· en· W2675603106 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amber P. Gemmell, Patricia McCarthy Veach, Ian M. MacFarlane, Rachel J. Riesgraf, Bonnie S. LeRoy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsGenetic counselingThematic analysisFamily medicineGenetic testingMedicinePerceptionPsychologyQualitative researchSociologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies have explored the public's views of genetic counseling services, and even fewer focus on founder populations with high prevalence of genetic disease, such as Hutterites. The Hutterites are an Anabaptist religious group grounded in a strong Christian faith. The primary aim of this study was to assess Hutterites' views of genetic counseling services. A secondary aim was to compare their views to those obtained in a study of rural Midwestern U.S. residents (Riesgraf et al., Journal of Genetic Counseling, 24(4), 565-579, 2015). One-hundred eleven individuals from southern Manitoba Hutterite colonies completed an anonymous survey assessing familiarity with and attitudes about genetic counseling; perceptions of its purpose, scope and practice; and willingness to use genetic counseling services. Although many respondents were not familiar with genetic counseling, most had accurate perceptions and positive attitudes. For instance, mean ratings showed endorsement of trust in information provided by genetic counselors and agreement that genetic counseling aligns with their values. Logistic regression indicated reported willingness to use genetic counseling services increased if respondents: had a higher self-rated familiarity with genetic counseling; were younger; agreed with the statement: I would trust the information provided by a genetic counselor; and disagreed with the statements: Genetic counseling is only useful for a small group of people with rare diseases, and Genetic counselors help expectant parents choose the eye color of their child. Thematic analysis of comments regarding willingness to use genetic counseling services yielded themes of personal/family risk, pragmatism (genetic counseling is sensible and practical for managing health concerns), and desire to prevent genetic conditions in the Hutterite population. Comparison of the present findings to those of Riesgraf et al. suggests predictors of Hutterites' willingness to use genetic counseling are unique and culturally-based. Limited replication of Riesgraf et al. was achieved. Additional findings, practice implications and research recommendations are presented.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207