Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 171–184 | Cite as

Assessment of the Effectiveness of Genetic Counseling by Telephone Compared to a Clinic Visit

  • Karan K. Sangha
  • Anita Dircks
  • Sylvie Langlois


Maternal serum screening, also known as the triple screen, is used during pregnancy to assess the risk of carrying a fetus with specific chromosome abnormalities or open spina bifida. All women in British Columbia who screen positive are eligible for genetic counseling and are offered amniocentesis. The purpose of this study is to determine what differences (if any) exist in patients' understanding and/or anxiety when genetic counseling for a positive triple screen is conducted in person versus over the telephone. Each patient who participated was given the choice of having genetic counseling in person or over the telephone, this after a randomized design failed to elicit any participants. Using a written postcounseling questionnaire, each patient was assessed for her understanding of the information presented in the session, and her anxiety regarding her risk. In this small pilot study, no large differences were detected in patients' understanding or anxiety when genetic counseling was conducted by telephone versus in person.

genetic counseling telephone maternal serum screen knowledge anxiety 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abuelo DN, Hopmann MR, Barsel-Bowers G, Goldstein A (1991) Anxiety in women with low maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening results. Prenat Diagn 11:381-385.Google Scholar
  2. Bernhardt BA, Biesecker BB, Mastromarino CL (2000) Goals, benefits and outcomes of genetic counseling: Client and genetic counselor assessment. Am J Med Genet 94:189-197.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll JC (1994) Maternal serum screening. Can Fam Physician 40:1756-1764.Google Scholar
  4. Doyle-Waters MMR (1994) Anxiety scale for pregnancy: Development and validation. MA Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  5. Gekas J, Gondry J, Mazur S, Cesbron P, Thepot F (1999) Informed consent to serum screening for Down syndrome: Are women given adequate information? Prenat Diagn 19:1-7.Google Scholar
  6. Goel V, Glazier R, Holzapfel S, Pugh P, Summers A (1996) Evaluating patient's knowledge of maternal serum screening. Prenat Diagn 16:425-430.Google Scholar
  7. Hallam L (1989) You've got a lot to answer for, Mr. Bell. A review of the use of the telephone in primary care. Fam Pract 6(1):47-75.Google Scholar
  8. Hornblow AR (1986) The evolution and effectiveness of telephone counseling services. Hosp Community Psychiatry 37(7):731-733.Google Scholar
  9. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W (1979) Impact of Events scale: A measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 41(3):209-218.Google Scholar
  10. Koren G, Graham K, Feigenbaum A, Einarson T (1993) Evaluation and counseling of teratogenic risk: The Motherisk approach. J Clin Pharmacol 33:405-411.Google Scholar
  11. Kornman LH, Wortelboer MJM, Beekhuis JR, Morssink LP, Mantingh A (1997) Women's opinions and the implications of first-versus second-trimester screening for fetal Down's syndrome. Prenat Diagn 17(11):1011-1018.Google Scholar
  12. Li KC, Lai SS, Lam ST (1999) Adequacy and pitfalls of G6PD deficiency counseling in Hong Kong. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 30(Suppl 2): 79-83.Google Scholar
  13. Lynch DL, Tamburrino MB, Nagel R (1997) Telephone counseling for patients with minor depression: Preliminary findings in a family practice setting. J Fam Pract 44(3):293-298.Google Scholar
  14. Marteau TM (1995) Towards informed decisions about prenatal testing: A review. Prenat Diagn 15:1215-1226.Google Scholar
  15. McBride CM, Rimer BK (1999) Using the telephone to improve health behavior and health service delivery. Patient Educ Counsel 37:3-18.Google Scholar
  16. Ormond KE, Haun J, Cook L, Duquette D, Ludowese C, Matthews AL (2000) Recommendations for telephone counseling. J Genet Counsel 9(1):63-71.Google Scholar
  17. Quagliarini D, Betti S, Brambati B, Nicolini U (1998) Coping with serum screening for Down syndrome when the result is given as a numeric value. Prenat Diagn 18:816-821.Google Scholar
  18. Rayburn W, Wilson G, Schreck J, Louwsma G, Hamman J (1982) Prenatal counseling: A state-wide telephone service. Obstet Gynecol 60(2):243-246.Google Scholar
  19. Shiloh S, Berkenstadt M, Meiran N, Bat-Miriam-Katznelson M, Goldman B (1997) Mediating effects of perceived personal control in coping with a health threat: The case of genetic counseling. J Appl Soc Psychol 27:1146-1174.Google Scholar
  20. Soet JE, Basch CE (1997) The telephone as a communication medium for health education. Health Educ Behav 24(6):759-772.Google Scholar
  21. Statistics Canada Web site: Scholar
  22. Tsu RC, Burm ML, Jennifer AG, Sells CW (2002) Telephone vs. face-to-face notification of HIV results in high-risk youth. J Adolesc Health 30:154-160.Google Scholar
  23. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(6):1063-1070.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson K, Williams A (2000) Visualism in community nursing: Implications for telephone work with service users. Qual Health Res 10(4):507-520.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karan K. Sangha
    • 1
  • Anita Dircks
    • 2
  • Sylvie Langlois
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical Genetics ClinicUniversity of Alberta HospitalEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Provincial Medical Genetics Programme, Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia and Department of Medical GeneticsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations