Genetic counseling outcomes validation by genetics nurses in the UK and US

Document Type


Peer Reviewed


Publication Date


NLM Title Abbreviation

J Nurs Scholarsh

Journal/Book/Conference Title

Journal of nursing scholarship

PubMed ID


DOI of Published Version


Start Page


End Page



PURPOSE: To validate genetic counseling outcomes with a sample of genetics nurses from the United Kingdom (UK), and to compare elements of genetic counseling outcomes with those from a sample of genetics nurses from the United States (US). DESIGN: Descriptive-comparative survey. METHODS: Concept analysis and literature review were used to designate outcomes, and genetics nurses were surveyed to validate the outcomes. A revision of Fehring's 1987 methodology for assessing content validity was used to estimate content validity and sensitivity of the genetic counseling outcomes. Data are reported on a convenience sample of 50 UK nurse members of the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors. Findings were correlated with prior data from a convenience sample of 92 U.S. nurse members of the International Society of Nurses in Genetics, Inc., and data were compared between groups. FINDINGS: A significant positive correlation was found between samples of U.K. and U.S. nurses regarding components of outcomes of the genetic counseling process and between groups regarding extent of contribution of nurses to the outcomes. Strength of nursing contributions to knowledge of disease and indicators of coping varied according to country. CONCLUSIONS: Genetics nurses in the UK and US had similar definitions of outcomes of genetic counseling, but priorities of indicators differed between countries. Terminology used in measures to identify outcomes of the process of genetic counseling must be consistent with cultural norms.


Genetic Counseling/standards, Great Britain, Humans, Multivariate Analysis, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Quality Indicators, Health Care, Specialties, Nursing/education, United States

Published Article/Book Citation

Journal of nursing scholarship, 33:4 (2001) pp.369-374.

This document is currently not available here.