Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Department of Psychology, Austin College, Sherman, TX, USA.
J Genet Couns. 2021 Jun;30(3):676-692. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1352. Epub 2020 Nov 12.
Research on genetic counseling outcomes has examined a range of metrics many that differ in quality and extent of psychometric assessment and in some cases fail to encompass potential benefits of genetic counseling for patients. Although a variety of possible outcomes have been explored, selecting the most important or relevant outcomes and identifying well-validated measures remain challenging. An online, modified Delphi method was used to prioritize genetic counseling outcomes from the viewpoint of individuals from four stakeholder groups - clinical genetic counselors, outcome researchers, genetic counseling training directors, and genetic counseling consumers/advocates. A survey of 181 genetic counseling outcomes were rated based on perceived importance and then sorted and categorized using the Framework for Outcomes of Clinical Communication Services in Genetic Counseling (FOCUS-GC) framework. Three of the FOCUS-GC domains (Process, Patient Care Experience, and Patient Changes) were assessed as most important, while none of the most highly rated outcomes fell into the domains of Patient Health or Family Changes. The majority of outcomes deemed most important by stakeholder groups were within the process domain. When looking at the proportion of outcomes that overlapped with the consumer group, clinical genetic counselors had the highest degree of similarity with consumers when looking at the high relative importance band outcomes (61.1% overlap), followed by training directors (58.3%), and outcome researchers (41.7%). Variability in importance according to stakeholder groups was an important consideration and prioritizing outcomes was challenging given that the majority of outcomes were rated as important. Working to bridge the realities of clinical care and fundamental differences in the viewpoints and priorities of genetic counseling research directions is an area for future exploration.
遗传咨询结果的研究考察了一系列指标,其中许多指标在质量和心理测量评估的程度上存在差异,在某些情况下未能包含遗传咨询对患者的潜在益处。尽管已经探索了各种可能的结果,但选择最重要或最相关的结果并确定经过良好验证的衡量标准仍然具有挑战性。采用在线修改德尔菲法,从四个利益相关者群体(临床遗传咨询师、结果研究人员、遗传咨询培训主任和遗传咨询消费者/倡导者)的角度对遗传咨询结果进行了优先级排序。对 181 个遗传咨询结果进行了重要性评估,然后使用遗传咨询临床沟通服务结果框架(FOCUS-GC)进行排序和分类。FOCUS-GC 的三个领域(过程、患者护理体验和患者变化)被评估为最重要的,而评分最高的结果中没有一个属于患者健康或家庭变化领域。利益相关者群体认为最重要的大多数结果都属于过程领域。当从消费者群体的角度来看,临床遗传咨询师与消费者的相似性最高(高相对重要性结果的重叠率为 61.1%),其次是培训主任(58.3%),然后是结果研究人员(41.7%)。根据利益相关者群体的重要性差异是一个重要的考虑因素,由于大多数结果都被评为重要,因此对结果进行优先级排序具有挑战性。努力弥合临床护理的现实与遗传咨询研究方向观点和优先事项的根本差异是未来探索的一个领域。