MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052099089

Psychiatrists' Percepitions of and Reactions to a Simulated Psychiatric Genetic Counseling Session

2023· article· en· W7052099089 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons-Sarah Lawrence (Sarah Lawrence College) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic counselingPsychosocialIdentification (biology)DistressDiseasePopulationReferral
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychiatric genetic counseling (pGC) is a small specialty within genetic counseling which aims to help people with psychiatric illnesses and their families by addressing misconceptions, promoting help-seeking behaviors and improving a patients’ perceived sense of control over their illness. Genetic testing is offered among most other specialities of genetic counseling, but it is not yet clinically available to diagnose or recognize predispositions to psychiatric conditions. Little research has evaluated psychiatrists practice of discussing genetics with patients and their understanding of pGC. After viewing a recorded pGC simulated session, 12 psychiatrists who practice in Ontario, Canada were interviewed for this study. Interpretive description was used as an inductive approach to data analysis which allowed for the creation of two theoretical models. The first model described the decision-making pathway psychiatrists follow when determining when to talk about genetics and referral practices. Within this model, three scalable concepts were determined to be crucial influencers in how psychiatrists discuss genetics with patients. These include psychiatrists’ perceived value of discussing genetics and their understanding, available time and awareness of the genetic counseling profession. Before watching the video, psychiatrists did not recognize the psychosocial skillset of genetic counselors and further advocacy for the profession is needed to facilitate the growth of pGC. Barriers to referral to genetic counseling were identified to be lack of access, perceived patient vulnerability and perceived patient disinterest. Facilitators of referral were identified to be trust, available funding and outcome data. An additional theoretical model described future directions for pGC within Ontario, as proposed by psychiatrists. Psychiatrists identified genetic counselors focusing on psychiatry to have utility in primary care, public health interventions and specialty psychiatric centers. Increased awareness of the profession and the skillset that genetic counselors bring is essential to future growth of the profession. This study identifies future directions for growing pGC within the Ontario healthcare context.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons-Sarah Lawrence (Sarah Lawrence College)Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207