Linking genetic counseling communication skills to patient outcomes and experiences using a community-engagement and provider-engagement approach: research protocol for the GC-PRO mixed methods sequential explanatory study.

INTRODUCTION: In over 50 years since the genetic counseling (GC) profession began, a systematic study of GC communication skills and patient-reported outcomes in actual sessions across multiple clinical specialties has never been conducted. To optimize GC quality and improve efficiency of care, the field must first be able to comprehensively measure GC skills and determine which skills are most critical to achieving positive patient experiences and outcomes. This study aims to characterise GC communication skills using a novel and pragmatic measure and link variations in communication skills to patient-reported outcomes, across clinical specialties and with patients from diverse backgrounds in the USA. Our community-engagement and provider-engagement approach is crucial to develop recommendations for quality, culturally informed GC care, which are greatly needed to improve GC practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods, sequential explanatory design will be used to collect and analyze: audio-recorded GC sessions in cancer, cardiac, and prenatal/reproductive genetic indications; pre-visit and post-visit quantitative surveys capturing patient experiences and outcomes and post-visit qualitative interview data. A novel, practical checklist will measure GC communication skills. Coincidence analysis will identify patterns of GC skills that are consistent with high scores on patient-reported measures. Two-level, multilevel models will be used to evaluate how GC communication skills and other session/patient characteristics predict patient-reported outcomes. Four community advisory boards (CABs) and a genetic counselor advisory board will inform the study design and analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the single Institutional Review Board of the University of Minnesota. This research poses no greater than minimal risk to participants. Results from this study will be shared through national and international conferences and through community-based dissemination as guided by the study's CABs. A lay summary will also be disseminated to all participants.

Genetic counseling student demographics: an empirical comparison of two cohorts.

Genetic counseling student characteristics may be evolving with the expansion and diversification of the genetic counseling field. We compared characteristics and previously accrued experiences of genetic counseling students enrolled in the 2018-2019 academic year with genetic counseling students surveyed by Lega et al. (Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14, 395; 2005). Four-hundred thirty students completed a survey (60% response rate) assessing demographics, select application experiences, encouragement and discouragement to apply to genetic counseling programs, and career certainty and motivations. Data analyses comprised descriptive statistics, content analysis of open-ended responses, and t tests and chi-square tests to compare responses to variables also assessed by Lega et al. Similarities between the two cohorts included most students being female, White/Caucasian, and biology majors; they reported a similar amount and type of support and discouragement; and they had strong career certainty. Salient group differences included the current cohort having a larger proportion of males (8% versus 3%; p=.007), greater percentage of parent(s) with a high socioeconomic status (SES; 31% versus 17%; p=.005), a lower first application cycle acceptance rate (71% versus 80%; p<.001), and they were more strongly influenced to pursue genetic counseling by future income (p<.001), desire to help others (p=.002), the profession's prestige (p<.001), and programs' 2-year duration (p<.001). Students applied to an average of six programs during their first application cycle and paid, on average, $1,648 for all application and interview expenses in their acceptance year. A vast majority (99%) had advocacy experiences (most commonly crisis intervention) and shadowing opportunities (94%), and 26% worked as genetic counseling assistants prior to their acceptance. Most students were interested primarily in cancer genetics at the time of survey completion. The genetic counseling field should continue efforts to improve racial and gender diversity and identify ways to increase program accessibility/affordability for individuals at all SES levels.

Effects of monitoring versus blunting on the public's preferences for information in a hypothetical cancer diagnosis scenario.

Monitoring and blunting are coping styles that characterize how people respond when faced with personally threatening situations. High monitors tend to pay more attention to, scan for, and amplify threatening cues; high blunters tend to avoid information and seek distractions when faced with a threatening event. This study sought to investigate possible differential effects of monitoring and blunting coping styles on information preferences in a hypothetical cancer diagnosis scenario in the adult general public of Minnesota. In a survey administered at a large public venue (2016 Minnesota State Fair), participants were asked to imagine they carried a gene mutation and were diagnosed with colon cancer. They indicated their information preference [modified Cassileth Information Styles Questionnaire (MCISQ)], completed two coping style measures [Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS) and Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI)], rated their perceived severity of colon cancer (low, moderate, high), and answered demographic questions. Eight hundred fifty-five individuals provided usable data. Participants classified as monitors on the TMSI had significantly higher MCISQ scores (i.e., preferred more information) than those classified as blunters (p = .004). Those scoring high on monitoring and low on blunting on the MBSS preferred significantly more information than those scoring high on both monitoring and blunting (p = .04). Linear regression analysis revealed being a monitor (TMSI), scoring high on monitoring (MBSS), rating colon cancer as more severe, and having a higher education level were significant positive predictors of MCISQ scores. Results suggest individual differences in coping style, perceived severity, and education level affect desire for information. Genetic counselors should consider these patient characteristics (e.g., asking patients about their information preferences) and tailor their approaches accordingly.

Content analysis of Journal of Genetic Counseling research articles: A multi-year perspective.

Content analyses of published papers in journals inform readers, editors, and members of the profession about historical publication patterns and how the journal has represented the field. This study is a content analysis of original research papers published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling from January 2011 through December 2017. This is the first study of its kind for the flagship journal of the National Society of Genetic Counseling. Of 794 papers published in the 7-year period, 428 were original research included in the analysis. Content analysis yielded categories reflecting the types of data analyses, genetic counseling practice specialties, characteristics of the study sample, and major topics/issues investigated in each study. There was an overall positive linear trend in the number of articles published during this period (p = .002). Approximately equal percentages of studies used qualitative (34%), quantitative (31%), and mixed (35%) analyses, and these proportions did not vary significantly across volumes (p = .73). Cancer (27%), prenatal (13.3%), and general genetics (12.6%) were the most prevalent specialties represented. The number of studies about prenatal and pediatrics was less, and the number of studies about neurogenetics was greater than would be expected based on the clinical workforce (p<.001). Patients were the most common sample (55.6%). While there was a significant increase in the number of articles with diverse samples (p = .001), the proportion of such articles did not increase over time (p = .86). The most common content areas were genetic counseling practice (16.8%); attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about genetics services (16.1%); and decision-making (14.5%). In contrast, relatively few studies focused on laboratory genetic counselor, male, gender non-conforming, and adoptee populations. The trends and gaps highlighted in this content analysis can inform future research endeavors.

Perceptions and Attitudes About Genetic Counseling Among Residents of a Midwestern Rural Area.

Relatively few investigations of the public's perceptions and attitudes about genetic counseling exist, and most are limited to individuals at-risk for a specific disease. In this study 203 individuals from a Midwest rural area completed an anonymous survey assessing their familiarity with genetic counseling; perceptions of genetic counseling purpose, scope, and practice; attitudes toward genetic counseling/counselors; and willingness to use genetic counseling services. Although very few respondents were familiar with genetic counseling, most reported accurate perceptions and positive attitudes; mean ratings, however, showed less endorsement of trust in information provided by genetic counselors and less agreement that genetic counseling aligns with their values. Logistic regression indicated reported willingness to use genetic counseling services increased if respondents: had completed some college; rated their familiarity with genetic counseling as high; agreed with the statements: genetic counseling may be useful to someone with cancer in their family, genetic counseling is in line with my values, and genetic counselors advise women to get abortions when there is a problem; and disagreed with the statements: genetic counseling is only useful to a small group of people with rare diseases, and genetic counselors must receive a lot of special training. Additional findings, practice implications, and research recommendations are presented.

Genetic counseling supervisor competencies: results of a Delphi study.

Clinical supervision is a critical component of genetic counseling student preparation, yet empirically-determined competencies for genetic counseling supervisors are lacking. In this study a modified, two-round Delphi method was used to gain consensus about important genetic counseling supervisor knowledge, characteristics, and skills. Program directors and assistant directors of American Board of Genetic Counseling accredited genetic counseling programs in North America (N = 33) were invited to participate and to recruit three experienced supervisors. Seventy-four individuals completed Round 1 and, of these, 61 completed Round 2. Approximately two-thirds were clinical supervisors from prenatal, pediatrics, cancer, and adult clinics; one-third were program directors. Participants rated the importance for genetic counseling supervisors of 158 items derived from supervision literature in allied health professions. They rated 142 items (89.9 %) as highly important. Content analysis of these items yielded six supervisor competency domains: Personal traits and characteristics; relationship building and maintenance; student evaluation; student centered supervision; guidance and monitoring of patient care; and ethical and legal aspects of supervision. The results provide a basis for training genetic counseling supervisors and for further research to refine and validate supervisor competencies.