Effects of Implicit Racial Bias and Standardized Patient Race on Genetic Counseling Students' Patient-Centered Communication.

Clinician racial bias has been associated with less patient-centered communication, but little is known about how it affects trainees' communication. We investigated genetic counseling students' communication during sessions with Black or White standardized patients (SPs) and the extent to which communication was associated with SP race or student scores on the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT). Sixty students conducted a baseline SP session and up to two follow-up sessions. Students were randomly assigned to a different White or Black SP and one of three clinical scenarios for each session. Fifty-six students completed the IAT. Session recordings were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Linear regression models assessed the effects of IAT score and SP race on a variety of patient-centered communication indicators. Random intercept models assessed the within-student effects of SP race on communication outcomes during the baseline session and in follow-up sessions (n = 138). Students were predominantly White (71%). Forty students (71%) had IAT scores indicating some degree of pro-White implicit preference. Baseline sessions with White relative to Black SPs had higher patient-centeredness scores. Within-participant analyses indicate that students used a higher proportion of back-channels (a facilitative behavior that cues interest and encouragement) and conducted longer sessions with White relative to Black SPs. Students' stronger pro-White IAT scores were associated with using fewer other facilitative statements during sessions with White relative to Black SPs. Different patterns of communication associated with SP race and student IAT scores were found for students than those found in prior studies with experienced clinicians.

Where is the "counseling" in prenatal genetic counseling?

OBJECTIVE: Prenatal genetic testing is routinely offered to all pregnant patients in the United States and is variably offered to certain pregnant populations globally [1]. To achieve value-based, informed decision-making, we argue for a shift away from the predominant "teaching" model of genetic counseling practice that prioritizes information and counselor dominance, toward a "counseling" model of practice that prioritizes the patient's narrative, values and beliefs. DISCUSSION: Since prenatal testing began, genetic counseling has aimed to facilitate informed decision-making. Many patients are not familiar with the conditions which can be screened for prenatally or the quality of life of affected children. This lack of understanding can leave expectant parents unprepared to make informed decisions about prenatal testing. As the number of prenatal genetic tests expands, genetic counselors and all healthcare providers who discuss prenatal testing face a growing amount of information that is not feasible to explain to patients in a routine appointment. Research demonstrates that the common approach to genetic counseling, including in the prenatal setting, is the provision of biomedical information. Yet, genetic counseling outcome studies suggest that attending to the relational aspects of genetic counseling are associated with more positive patient outcomes, including enhanced knowledge, informed decision-making and greater patient satisfaction [2,3]. Through case vignettes, we illustrate the application of a counseling model of practice using Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) practice-based competencies in the domain of "Interpersonal, Psychosocial and Counseling Skills" [4]. Finally, we propose changes across the genetic counseling profession to move clinical practice toward a more relational model of care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A counseling model of genetic counseling practice leads to more positive patient outcomes [2,3]. Genetic counselors and other prenatal healthcare providers can leverage existing counseling and communication skills to support clients in value-based, informed decision-making in prenatal genetic counseling practice.

Evaluation of mailed results versus telephone disclosure of normal cancer genetic test results in a low-risk underserved population.

Scalable models for result disclosure are needed to ensure large-scale access to genomics services. Research evaluating alternatives to genetic counseling suggests effectiveness; however, it is unknown whether these findings are generalizable across populations. We assessed whether a letter is non-inferior to telephone genetic counseling to inform participants with no personal or family history of cancer of their normal results. Data were collected via self-report surveys before and after result disclosure (at 1 and 6 months) in a study sample enriched for individuals from underserved populations. Primary outcomes were subjective understanding of results (global and aggregated) and test-related feelings, ascertained via three subscales (uncertainty, negative emotions, and positive feelings) of the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) measure. Secondary outcomes related to satisfaction with communication. Non-inferiority tests compared outcomes among disclosure methods. Communication by letter was inferior in terms of global subjective understanding of results (at 1 month) and non-inferior to telephoned results (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for aggregated understanding (at 6 months). Letter was superior (at 1 month) to telephone on the uncertainty FACToR subscale. Letter was non-inferior to telephone on the positive-feelings FACToR subscale (at 6 months). Letter was non-inferior to telephone for satisfaction with mode of result delivery and genetic test results. Communication via letter was inferior to telephone in communicating the "right amount of information." The use of written communication to relay normal results to low-risk individuals is a promising strategy that may improve the efficiency of care delivery.

Genetic counseling services delivered in the usual way­during clinic visits­can take up a lot of time for patients and genetic counselors. Alternatives to this practice have been studied among genetic counseling patients to spare genetic counselors' time and expand access and flexibility for patients. Yet, in these studies, the participants have lacked diversity. So, it is not known how these research findings pertain to all populations. In this study, we looked at the use of an alternative care model, a mailed letter, for sharing normal genetic test results with study participants from underserved populations. We tested whether patients viewed the mailed letter as no worse than a telephone conversation with a genetic counselor, which has been shown to be well received by patients. We learned that study participants felt they understood their results, were not distressed to receive the results, and were satisfied with how their results were delivered. Lastly, we found that participants were more satisfied with the amount of information provided about their test results during the telephone conversation compared with the mailed letter. This study provides new information about different ways to deliver test results to individuals receiving genetic services.