MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386084240 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1771

Cross‐cultural adaptation of the Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS‐24) for use in Canada: A qualitative study

2023· article· en· W4386084240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Rodríguez Redondo, Marion McAllister

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCardiff University
KeywordsThematic analysisComprehensionFeelingPsychologyMeaning (existential)Applied psychologyCognitionQualitative researchCoding (social sciences)Clinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyComputer sciencePsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS)-24 is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed and validated in the United Kingdom (UK). The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt GCOS-24 to Canadian Clinical Genetic Services (CGS). This was achieved through a qualitative study exploring whether the existing GCOS-24 maintains its intended meaning in a Canadian population and assessing whether GCOS-24 items could be better worded to meet the needs of members of families affected by genetic conditions in Canada. Thirteen participants were recruited from Canadian Patient Organizations supporting people and families affected by genetic conditions. Data were collected through semi-structured cognitive interviews, as these allow exploration of participants' comprehension, opinions, thoughts, and feelings regarding GCOS-24's instructions, response options, and the meaning/relevance of each item. Thematic analysis was utilized for data analysis, and an inductive approach to coding was followed to allow for themes to emerge from the data. Themes were organized in respect to their questionnaire item and further classified into their respective Empowerment dimension. The GCOS-24 instructions were found easy to understand by all thirteen participants. Although the response options were also found to be straightforward, the data suggest the questionnaire would benefit from the addition of a "non-applicable" option. Semantic validation of the GCOS-24 showed that items within the Cognitive Control and Emotional Regulation dimensions were found easy to understand by participants. However, items within the Decisional Control, Behavioural Control and Hope dimensions presented semantic difficulties. Participants provided feedback on syntactic changes to support understanding, and this feedback was used to develop a final Canadian-adapted version of GCOS-24, GCOS-Canada. This study provides the first step towards a valid, culturally adapted PROM for use in Canadian CGS service evaluation and research. GCOS-Canada would benefit from psychometric validation to ensure validity, reliability, responsiveness, minimal clinically important difference and internal consistency.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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