Biomedical subjects

M McGoldrick

Publications and source records attributed to M McGoldrick.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1988

Reading and interpreting genograms: a systematic approach.

Family physicians continue to struggle with the problem of how to make optimal use of family information in everyday clinical practice. One important task in addressing this problem is describing systematically the categories of family information that are incorporated into the usual clinical problem-solving process used by physicians. In this article the usefulness of the genogram as a data-gathering and assessment tool is reexamined, and six information categories that can be used for generating and testing clinical hypotheses are outlined. Three clinical case studies are presented to demonstrate how physicians can read and interpret genograms systematically.

Adjustment Disorders↗

PubMed1987

Researching ethnic family stereotypes.

Ethnic stereotypes in the family therapy literature make intuitive sense, but are based on surprisingly little empirical data. In a questionnaire survey of the family experiences of 220 mental health professionals representing eight American ethnic groups, most items differentiated the groups as predicted. A smaller, partial replication study comparing samples from Holland, Ireland, and North America found fewer discriminating items, but the differences that did appear were again as predicted. Implications for therapy and research with ethnic families are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed1985

The computerized genogram.

Genograms are used in family therapy and family medicine to assess the family from a systemic perspective. Computerized genograms automate the process and allow the clinician to manipulate data in a number of different ways.

Electronic Data Processing↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Can experts predict health risk from family genograms?

BACKGROUND: The family genogram is sometimes used to aid diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive care decisions. This study evaluated the efficacy of genograms for predicting health risk in comparison to predictions made using demographic and chart review data. METHODS: Six physicians with expertise in using genograms were asked to evaluate 20 actual patient cases and use three methods to predict the patients' chances, over the next three months, of: a) experiencing illness causing at least one disability day, b) making an unexpected physician visit for a new problem, or c) requiring hospitalization. The three methods were genogram evaluation, review of patient demographics, and review of patients' charts. Predictions from demographic data were always made first; the other two methods were used in varied order. Three months later, actual patient outcomes were reviewed and compared to predictions. RESULTS: Over the next three months, 44% of subjects experienced a disability day, 35% made an unexpected clinic visit, and none required hospitalization. Predictions of these events with genograms were no more accurate than predictions generated from chart review. The six genogram experts did not predict outcomes at better than chance levels. CONCLUSIONS: Genograms may be no more accurate than standard clinical chart review for predicting short-term (three month) health outcomes.

Family Health↗