Parental request for familial carrier testing in early childhood: The genetic counseling perspective.

Professional guidelines generally caution against carrier testing in minors, though prior research indicates parents request and providers sometimes facilitate testing for unaffected siblings of a child affected by a genetic disorder. We investigated the perspectives of genetic counselors in North America regarding carrier testing prior to adolescence. Practicing genetic counselors (n = 177) responded to an electronic survey assessing their willingness to facilitate testing in four hypothetical scenarios and their evaluation of parental motivations. Participants did not find parental arguments for testing persuasive, and most were unwilling to facilitate carrier testing in children. A significant interaction effect indicated the presence of nonactionable carrier-associated health risks in adulthood made participants significantly less hesitant when the mode of inheritance was X-linked. Participants considered parental motivations that center the child's interests as significantly more persuasive. This study suggests genetic counselors are resistant to carrier testing for familial disorders in young children and tend to align with current guidelines, yet they recognize nuance in various cases. Further investigation into this topic is warranted to support genetic counselors facing these requests as the ethics of pediatric carrier testing continues to be debated.

Promoting the integration of genetic counseling education and research across the spectrum of learners at a large academic institution.

Genetic counselors are valuable members of research teams and are increasingly taking leadership roles in major research trials. While the field of genetic counseling has explored a doctoral degree several times, the terminal degree is still a master's level. Genetic counseling training programs provide research training, but many genetic counselors desire additional opportunities to develop expertise. To address the gaps in the availability of research training before and after obtaining genetic counseling degrees, we applied for and received a grant centered around three aims: (1) develop an undergraduate minor in genomics and human health with a research component, (2) promote a rigorous genetic counseling research program for training to practice genetic counselors, and (3) initiate a combined PhD program in Molecular, Cellular, Developmental Biology, and Genetics (MCDB&G) with a track in genetic counseling. We describe each of these components and early progress toward these aims. As each individual aim is bearing fruit, the next challenges are implementing more crossover between people in each aim and distilling the lessons learned to see if this program could be replicated at other sites.

Exploration of support for Black, Indigenous, and people of color students in genetic counseling programs.

Students in higher education who identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) experience racism, discrimination, and microaggressions through tokenization, hypervisibility, invisibility, and marginalization. The experiences of BIPOC genetic counseling students with curriculum, clinical training, and sense of belonging also differ. Therefore, there is a large need for understanding how support is defined by BIPOC genetic counseling students, and then how to integrate specific aspects of training into a practical framework for programs to address racism and the resulting emotional implications. This study aimed to define current practices of support and identify gaps in genetic counseling programs as described by BIPOC students. BIPOC genetic counseling students (N = 40) were recruited through Listserv, social media, and Slack channels to complete an online survey eliciting demographic data, perspectives on support, and available support resources. The online survey consisted of 22 open- and closed-ended questions. Data were collected over a 5-week period. Open-ended responses were coded by thematic analysis and audited. The top three supports were as follows: (1) presence of other BIPOC students; (2) presence of BIPOC faculty; and (3) financial funding. Participants' individual definitions of support indicated that each student defined support in a unique way. Most participants defined understanding and empathy stemming from peers, supervisors, and faculty within the program setting as important aspects of overall support. The majority of participants felt somewhat or strongly supported in areas of training. The area with the least support was within rotation/fieldwork experiences. Programs should consider social- and program-level support combined with emotional support. Individualized support for every student is needed while avoiding assumptions about their identity and support needs. Training programs may consider a balance of efforts to prioritize recruiting more BIPOC faculty and students and providing the outlined support and funding resources for their students.

Inconvenient sampling: Community-engaged and restorative justice approaches to genetic counseling student research.

Genetic counseling research requires a comprehensive approach since it frequently serves as the foundation for clinical care practice. Genetic counseling students play a pivotal role in advancing the profession, as they contribute a significant proportion of the research conducted within the genetic counseling community. However, a prevailing trend of convenience sampling of genetic counselors has limited the diversity of perspectives in student research projects. This article promotes a strategy for greater inclusivity and equity in research by emphasizing community-engaged and empowered research through the perspective of restorative justice. Reflecting on the shadow of the harmful ideologies of eugenics in our profession underscores the need to amplify patients' voices and diverse experiences. Community-engaged research-in collaboration with individuals, families, and communities directly impacted by genetic counseling-transcends traditional research paradigms, empowering patients and addressing systemic inequities. Incorporating community-engaged research into genetic counseling student projects aims to empower future professionals to better understand patient perspectives and needs while working toward addressing historical injustices. This article explores the potential benefits and pathways of incorporating community-engaged research and restorative justice principles into genetic counseling scholarly work, promoting empathy, cultural responsiveness, and ultimately, a more patient-centered approach to research and clinical care. By embracing this collective journey toward authentic partnership in the production of high-quality evidence in genetic counseling student research and more broadly, genetic counseling can become a more just and inclusive practice.

Genetic counselors' response types to prenatal patient deferring or attributing religious/spiritual statements: An exploratory study of US genetic counselors.

Research shows religiosity and spirituality (R/S) influence genetic counseling patients' and families' risk perception, decision-making, and coping. No published studies have examined how genetic counselors respond to patient-initiated R/S statements. This exploratory study examined genetic counselors' response types and reasons for their responses to two prenatal patient's R/S statements. Genetic counselors (n = 225) recruited through a National Society of Genetic Counselors eblast completed a survey containing two hypothetical scenarios regarding a prenatal patient's receipt of a trisomy 18 diagnosis. Scenarios were identical except for the last patient statement: "God makes everything possible…we leave things in his hands" (a deferring statement) or "I feel like God is punishing me for something I did" (an attributing statement). Imagining they were the counselor, participants wrote a response to each scenario and provided reasons for their response. Responses were analyzed using the Helping Skills Verbal Response System. MANOVA and chi-square tests, examining differences in response type based on patient statement (deferring or attributing), participant comfort with R/S, and years of experience, yielded a significant multivariate effect for scenario (p < 0.001). Responses to the deferring statement scenario contained a greater proportion of content statements (p < 0.001), closed questions (p < 0.001), and information-giving (p < 0.001). Responses to the attributing statement scenario contained a greater proportion of open questions (p = 0.05), influencing statements (p < 0.001), and affective statements (p = 0.006). Neither comfort with R/S nor genetic counseling experience significantly affected response type. Thematic analysis of reasons for responses yielded nine themes. Most prevalent were exploration (of the patient's statement), validation, correction (of patient's beliefs), and reassurance. The findings reflect stylistic differences in how and why genetic counselors respond to patients.

Differences in genetic counseling student responses to intense patient affect: A study of students in North American programs.

Research indicates genetic counseling patients often experience intense emotions. No studies, however, have investigated how genetic counseling students respond to patient affect. This survey study investigated student responses to patient emotions and select factors affecting their responses. One-hundred fifty-one genetic counseling students in North American programs wrote a response to each of three hypothetical prenatal scenarios, identical except for the patient affect expressed (anger, fear, or sadness). They also completed measures of empathy tendency and tolerance of negative affect and demographic questions. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), used to analyze the effects of major study variables on the types of responses given by participants, was significant. Follow-up univariate ANCOVAs indicated small to moderate effect sizes for student clinical experience, race/ethnicity, and relationship status within and across scenarios. For example, as number of patients counseled increased, participants used more feeling reflections and fewer self-involving statements. There were no significant differences in responses due to empathy tendency or affect tolerance. Most common responses were information provision and feeling reflections for the Anger scenario, information provision for the Fear scenario, and influencing responses for the Sadness scenario. Responses to each scenario typically involved multiple thoughts (range: 1-14; means ranged from 3.25 in the Sadness scenario to 3.62 in the Fear scenario). Most students (82%) reported the Anger scenario was the most difficult. Thematic analysis of reasons a scenario was difficult yielded four themes: Discomfort with situation/emotion, Positive countertransference, Uncertain how to respond, and Negative countertransference. Findings that clinical experience affects how participants responded to patient affect support the essential role of applied experience. Findings also support training and supervision to help genetic counseling students in North America learn ways to respond to strong patient emotions and recognize and manage countertransference.

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.

A Delphi study to prioritize genetic counseling outcomes: What matters most.

Research on genetic counseling outcomes has examined a range of metrics many that differ in quality and extent of psychometric assessment and in some cases fail to encompass potential benefits of genetic counseling for patients. Although a variety of possible outcomes have been explored, selecting the most important or relevant outcomes and identifying well-validated measures remain challenging. An online, modified Delphi method was used to prioritize genetic counseling outcomes from the viewpoint of individuals from four stakeholder groups - clinical genetic counselors, outcome researchers, genetic counseling training directors, and genetic counseling consumers/advocates. A survey of 181 genetic counseling outcomes were rated based on perceived importance and then sorted and categorized using the Framework for Outcomes of Clinical Communication Services in Genetic Counseling (FOCUS-GC) framework. Three of the FOCUS-GC domains (Process, Patient Care Experience, and Patient Changes) were assessed as most important, while none of the most highly rated outcomes fell into the domains of Patient Health or Family Changes. The majority of outcomes deemed most important by stakeholder groups were within the process domain. When looking at the proportion of outcomes that overlapped with the consumer group, clinical genetic counselors had the highest degree of similarity with consumers when looking at the high relative importance band outcomes (61.1% overlap), followed by training directors (58.3%), and outcome researchers (41.7%). Variability in importance according to stakeholder groups was an important consideration and prioritizing outcomes was challenging given that the majority of outcomes were rated as important. Working to bridge the realities of clinical care and fundamental differences in the viewpoints and priorities of genetic counseling research directions is an area for future exploration.

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.

Genetic counselor experiences with telehealth before and after COVID-19.

While genetic counselor (GC) utilization of telehealth has increased in recent years, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated the adoption of telehealth for many. We investigated GC experiences with telehealth including perceived advantages, disadvantages, and barriers using a one-time online survey of GCs who provided direct patient care in recent years. The survey examined experiences with telehealth before and after the onset of COVID-19. We made broad comparisons to findings from a similar study our research team conducted five years ago. GCs reported an increase in the utilization of telehealth over time, with significant increases from pre-2017 (44%) to pre-COVID-19 (70%) and then to present (87%) (p<.001 and .02, respectively). There was no significant change in the total number of hours worked from pre-COVID-19 to the time of survey completion, nor were there significant changes in the amount of time spent on clinical responsibilities or interfacing with patients. However, the total number of hours worked in telehealth significantly increased (z = 5.05, p<.001) as did the percent of time spent interacting with patients via telehealth [t(72)=3.74, p<.001, d = 0.44]. Participants overwhelmingly preferred video (84%) over telephone; this differs from our previous survey where video was the preferred modality for 59% (p<.001). We utilized open-ended questions to elicit reasons for modality preference. The most-cited barrier to telehealth utilization was billing/reimbursement issues, with 39% noting this obstacle. This is consistent with our previous study where 30% cited billing/reimbursement as the primary barrier. These findings indicate a need for continued efforts to improve billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling offered via telehealth. They also present an opportunity for additional exploration regarding patient preferences for telehealth modality.

Characterizing standardized patients and genetic counseling graduate education.

Standardized patients (SPs) are laypersons trained to portray patients, family members, and others in a consistent, measurable manner to teach and assess healthcare students, and to provide practice for emotionally and medically challenging cases. SP methodology has been studied with practicing genetic counselors; however, there is minimal empirical evidence characterizing its use in genetic counseling (GC) education. The Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) Standards of Accreditation for Graduate Programs in Genetic Counseling include SP sessions as one way to achieve up to 20% of the 50 participatory cases required for graduation. The purpose of the current project was to determine the scope, frequency, and timing of SP methodology in ACGC-accredited programs to establish baseline usage, which happened prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A 40-item investigator-created survey was developed to document the scope and frequency of SP use among programs. The survey was distributed through the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors' (AGCPD) listserv to 43 accredited and 6 programs under development. Surveys were analyzed from 25 accredited programs (response rate = 58%). Seventeen of these programs report inclusion of SP methodology in the curricula (68%), of which 13 report working with an established SP program. SPs are used predominantly for role-plays (70.6%), individualized instruction and remediation (29.4%), and for other reasons such as lecture demonstration, final examinations, practicing skills, and assessing students' goals. Sixteen of the participating programs use SPs to give GC students experience disclosing positive test results. Other details vary among the GC programs including the use of trained SPs, volunteer or paid SPs, actors with and without SP training, or GC students acting as patients. This study demonstrates that GC program SP experiences differ, but are largely viewed as valuable by the programs. Many GC programs report using SP encounters to create multiple opportunities for students to practice and refine clinical skills similar to SPs in medical school.

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.

Genetic counselor and proxy patient perceptions of genetic counselor responses to prenatal patient self-disclosure requests: Skillfulness is in the eye of the beholder.

Research demonstrates some genetic counselors self-disclose while others do not when patients' request self-disclosure. Limited psychotherapy research suggests skillfulness matters more than type of counselor response. This survey research assessed perceived skillfulness of genetic counselor self-disclosures and non-disclosures. Genetic counselors (n = 147) and proxy patients, women from the public (n = 201), read a hypothetical prenatal genetic counseling scenario and different counselor responses to the patient's question, What would you do if you were me? Participants were randomized either to a self-disclosure study (Study 1) or non-disclosure study (Study 2) and, respectively, rated the skillfulness of five personal disclosures and five professional disclosures or five decline to disclose and five redirecting non-disclosures. Counselor responses in both studies varied by intention (corrective, guiding, interpretive, literal, or reassuring). Participants also described what they thought made a response skillful. A three-way mixed ANOVA in both studies analyzed skillfulness ratings as a function of sample (proxy patient, genetic counselor), response type (personal, professional self-disclosure, or redirecting, declining non-disclosure), and response intention. Both studies found a significant three-way interaction and strong main effect for response intention. Responses rated highest in skillfulness by both genetic counselors and proxy patients in Study 1 were a guiding personal self-disclosure and a personal reassuring self-disclosure. The response rated highest in skillfulness by both samples in Study 2 was a redirecting non-disclosure with a reassuring intention. Proxy patients in both studies rated all literal responses as more skillful than genetic counselors. Participants' commonly described a skillful response as offering guidance and/or reassurance. Counselor intentions and response type appear to influence perceptions, and counselors and patients may not always agree in their perceptions. Consistent with models of practice (e.g., Reciprocal-Engagement Model), genetic counselors generally should aim to convey support and guidance in their responses to prenatal patient self-disclosure requests.

Advancing the genetic counseling profession through research: Identification of priorities by the National Society of Genetic Counselors research task force.

To help advance research critical to the achievement of the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) strategic objectives, coordination and prioritization of society resources are needed. NSGC convened a task force to advance research necessary for the achievement of our strategic objectives by reviewing existing society-supported research efforts identifying gaps in current research, and coordinating society resources, the task force was formed in order to coordinate and prioritize society resources to advance research critical to the achievement of our strategic objectives. The task force developed a research agenda outlining high-priority research questions for the next 5 years. The questions are organized into four domains: (a) Genetic Counseling Clients; (b) Genetic Counseling Process and Outcomes; (c) Value of Genetic Counseling Services; and (d) Access to Genetic Counseling Services. This framework can be used to advocate for research and funding priorities within NSGC and with other key research entities to stimulate the growth and advancement of the genetic counseling profession.

Genetic Counselors' Experiences and Interest in Telegenetics and Remote Counseling.

In 2009, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Service (NSGC) Delivery Model Task Force defined genetic counseling service delivery models including telephone (genetic counseling provided remotely by telephone) and telegenetics (counseling provided remotely using videoconferencing). Little is known about the experience of genetic counselors practicing telemedicine in the USA. We sought to evaluate perceived satisfaction, advantages, disadvantages, and barriers to the practice and implementation of telegenetics by practicing genetic counselors. A 21-question online survey was distributed via the NSGC's member directory. Descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis were used to analyze data. A total of 344 surveys were completed of which 235 (68.3%) respondents had delivered genetic counseling via telemedicine and 109 (36.6%) had not. Overall genetic counseling providers who had provided telegenetics were satisfied or very satisfied with their position (91%) and those who were not performing telegenetics were at least slightly interested in a telehealth position (92%).The most common appealing reasons for working in or wanting to work in telemedicine included an innovative approach to healthcare delivery, aspects of remote positions such as the ability to work from home, and flexibility of hours. Unappealing characteristics of telemedicine included the inability to see nonverbals, limited psychosocial counseling, and limited social interaction with colleague that is associated with remote positions. Barriers to implementation of telegenetics were noted by 53% of respondents with the largest barrier being billing and reimbursement. The results of this work suggest that telegenetics service organizations could consider increasing social interactions, attempting to use the preferred method of care (video) to increase ability to see nonverbals, offering flexible work hours, and allowing time to address psychosocial issues as they arise in consultations.

Characterizing Clinical Genetic Counselors' Countertransference Experiences: an Exploratory Study.

Countertransference (CT) refers to conscious and unconscious emotions, fantasies, behaviors, perceptions, and psychological defenses genetic counselors experience in response to any aspect of genetic counseling situations (Weil 2010). Some authors theorize about the importance of recognizing and managing CT, but no studies solely aim to explore genetic counselors' experiences of the phenomenon. This study examined the extent to which clinical genetic counselors' perceive themselves as inclined to experience CT, gathered examples of CT encountered in clinical situations, and assessed their CT management strategies. An anonymous online survey, sent to NSGC members, yielded 127 usable responses. Participants completed Likert-type items rating their CT propensities; 57 of these individuals also provided examples of CT they experienced in their practice. Factor analysis of CT propensities tentatively suggested four factors: Control, Conflict Avoidance, Directiveness, and Self-Regulation, accounting for 38.5% of response variance. Thematic analysis of CT examples yielded five common triggers: general similarity to patient, medical/genetic similarity, angry patients, patient behaves differently from counselor expectations, and disclosing bad news; six common manifestations: being self-focused, projecting feelings onto the patient, intense emotional reaction to patient, being overly invested, disengagement, and physical reaction; five CT effects: disruption in rapport building, repaired empathy, over-identification, conversation does not reach fullest potential, and counselor is drained emotionally; and three management strategies: recognizing CT as it occurs, self-reflection, and consultation. Results suggest CT is a common experience, occurring in both "routine" and emotionally complex cases. Training programs, continuing education, and peer supervision might include discussion of CT, informed by examples from the present study, to increase genetic counselor awareness and skills for managing the phenomenon.

Effects of Anxiety on Novice Genetic Counseling Students' Experience of Supervised Clinical Rotations.

Supervised clinical experiences with patients comprise a critical component of genetic counseling student education. Previous research has found genetic counseling students tend to be more anxiety prone than the general population, and anxiety related to supervision has been found in genetic counseling and related fields. The present study investigated how anxiety affects the experience of supervision for genetic counseling students. Second year genetic counseling students were invited to participate through email invitations distributed via training directors of the 33 programs accredited at the time of the study by the American Board of Genetic Counseling. An initial online survey contained the trait scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory to estimate anxiety proneness in this population and an invitation to participate in a 45-minute semi-structured phone interview focusing on students' experiences of supervision during their clinical rotations. High and low trait anxiety groups were created using STAI scores, and the groups' interview responses were compared using consensual qualitative research methodology (CQR; Hill 2012). The high anxiety group was more likely to describe problematic supervisory relationships, appreciate the supervisor's ability to help them when they get stuck in sessions, and feel their anxiety had a negative effect on their performance in general and in supervision. Common themes included supervisors' balancing support and guidance, the importance of feedback, ego-centric responses, and supervisors as focal points. The results of the present study are largely consistent with current literature. Further research findings and research, practice, and training recommendations are provided.

Genetic Counseling Supervisors' Self-Efficacy for Select Clinical Supervision Competencies.

Supervision is a primary instructional vehicle for genetic counseling student clinical training. Approximately two-thirds of genetic counselors report teaching and education roles, which include supervisory roles. Recently, Eubanks Higgins and colleagues published the first comprehensive list of empirically-derived genetic counseling supervisor competencies. Studies have yet to evaluate whether supervisors possess these competencies and whether their competencies differ as a function of experience. This study investigated three research questions: (1) What are genetic counselor supervisors' perceptions of their capabilities (self-efficacy) for a select group of supervisor competencies?, (2) Are there differences in self-efficacy as a function of their supervision experience or their genetic counseling experience, and 3) What training methods do they use and prefer to develop supervision skills? One-hundred thirty-one genetic counselor supervisors completed an anonymous online survey assessing demographics, self-efficacy (self-perceived capability) for 12 goal setting and 16 feedback competencies (Scale: 0-100), competencies that are personally challenging, and supervision training experiences and preferences (open-ended). A MANOVA revealed significant positive effects of supervision experience but not genetic counseling experience on participants' self-efficacy. Although mean self-efficacy ratings were high (>83.7), participant comments revealed several challenging competencies (e.g., incorporating student's report of feedback from previous supervisors into goal setting, and providing feedback about student behavior rather than personal traits). Commonly preferred supervision training methods included consultation with colleagues, peer discussion, and workshops/seminars.

Defining Our Clinical Practice: The Identification of Genetic Counseling Outcomes Utilizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model.

The need for evidence-based medicine, including comparative effectiveness studies and patient-centered outcomes research, has become a major healthcare focus. To date, a comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes, as espoused by genetic counselors, has not been established and thus, identification of outcomes unique to genetic counseling services has become a priority for the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The purpose of this study was to take a critical first step at identifying a more comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes. This paper describes the results of a focus group study using the Reciprocal-Engagement Model (REM) as a framework to characterize patient-centered outcomes of genetic counseling clinical practice. Five focus groups were conducted with 27 peer nominated participants who were clinical genetic counselors, genetic counseling program directors, and/or outcomes researchers in genetic counseling. Members of each focus group were asked to identify genetic counseling outcomes for four to five of the 17 goals of the REM. A theory-driven, thematic analysis of focus group data yielded 194 genetic counseling outcomes across the 17 goals. Participants noted some concerns about how genetic counseling outcomes will be measured and evaluated given varying stakeholders and the long-term nature of genetic concerns. The present results provide a list of outcomes for use in future genetic counseling outcomes research and for empirically-supported clinical interventions.

Genetic counselor perceptions of genetic counseling session goals: a validation study of the reciprocal-engagement model.

Although some researchers have attempted to define genetic counseling practice goals, no study has obtained consensus about the goals from a large sample of genetic counselors. The Reciprocal-Engagement Model (REM; McCarthy Veach, Bartels & LeRoy, 2007) articulates 17 goals of genetic counseling practice. The present study investigated whether these goals could be generalized as a model of practice, as determined by a larger group of clinical genetic counselors. Accordingly, 194 genetic counselors were surveyed regarding their opinions about the importance of each goal and their perceptions of how frequently they achieve each goal. Mean importance ratings suggest they viewed every goal as important. Factor analysis of the 17 goals yielded four factors: Understanding and Appreciation, Support and Guidance, Facilitative Decision-Making, and Patient-Centered Education. Patient-Centered Education and Facilitative Decision-Making goals received the highest mean importance ratings. Mean frequency ratings were consistently lower than importance ratings, suggesting genetic counseling goals may be difficult to achieve and/or not applicable in all situations. A number of respondents provided comments about the REM goals that offer insight into factors related to implementing the goals in clinical practice. This study presents preliminary evidence concerning the validity of the goals component of the REM.