2023
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-02802-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The importance of on-site genetic counseling for prospective assisted reproductive technology patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding aligns with a cross‐sectional online survey result from Sweden (Pestoff et al., 2016). Genetic counselors are identified as adding value in the clinical setting by being the link that closes the gap between the patient's medical and psychosocial needs (Benammar et al., 2023; Pestoff et al., 2016). Genetic counselors are described as more accessible than medical geneticist doctors, who have the primary medical responsibility.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This finding aligns with a cross‐sectional online survey result from Sweden (Pestoff et al., 2016). Genetic counselors are identified as adding value in the clinical setting by being the link that closes the gap between the patient's medical and psychosocial needs (Benammar et al., 2023; Pestoff et al., 2016). Genetic counselors are described as more accessible than medical geneticist doctors, who have the primary medical responsibility.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Genetic counselors are described as more accessible than medical geneticist doctors, who have the primary medical responsibility. Their role is to counsel couples on their calculated risks while ensuring the sound realization of presumptions and prenatal testing procedures suited to each (Benammar et al., 2023). They are viewed as performing as case managers with a more holistic, ethical, and psychological perspective, offering continuous support and building a relationship with the patient (Pestoff et al., 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%