Fig. 2: Average Importance, Urgency and Feasibility ratings for additional strategies aggregated from participant proposals in Phase I; these aggregated solutions were rated by n = 66 participants in Phase II. | European Journal of Human Genetics

Fig. 2: Average Importance, Urgency and Feasibility ratings for additional strategies aggregated from participant proposals in Phase I; these aggregated solutions were rated by n = 66 participants in Phase II.

From: Priority European strategies for sustainable access to high-quality genetic counselling in cancer: A Delphi study

Fig. 2: Average Importance, Urgency and Feasibility ratings for additional strategies aggregated from participant proposals in Phase I; these aggregated solutions were rated by n = 66 participants in Phase II.

Error bars represent standard error. Consensus Importance and Urgency was defined a priori as an average rating ≥7. # - significant differences between professional groups, Importance rating (p < 0.05). * - significant differences between professional groups, Urgency rating (p < 0.05). ^ - significant differences between professional groups, Feasibility rating (p < 0.05).

Back to article page