Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors.

PURPOSE: We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants. METHODS: Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher's exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes. RESULTS: Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings. CONCLUSION: Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

Genetic counselors' utilization of ChatGPT in professional practice: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: The precision medicine era has seen increased utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of genetics. We sought to explore the ways that genetic counselors (GCs) currently use the publicly accessible AI tool Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in their work. METHODS: GCs in North America were surveyed about how ChatGPT is used in different aspects of their work. Descriptive statistics were reported through frequencies and means. RESULTS: Of 118 GCs who completed the survey, 33.8% (40) reported using ChatGPT in their work; 47.5% (19) use it in clinical practice, 35% (14) use it in education, and 32.5% (13) use it in research. Most GCs (62.7%; 74) felt that it saves time on administrative tasks but the majority (82.2%; 97) felt that a paramount challenge was the risk of obtaining incorrect information. The majority of GCs not using ChatGPT (58.9%; 46) felt it was not necessary for their work. CONCLUSION: A considerable number of GCs in the field are using ChatGPT in different ways, but it is primarily helpful with tasks that involve writing. It has potential to streamline workflow issues encountered in clinical genetics, but practitioners need to be informed and uniformly trained about its limitations.

A qualitative focus group analysis: Increasing fieldwork capacity in genetic counseling training programs.

Genetic counselors are an integral part of the healthcare system; however, the number of genetic counselors in many parts of the United States is limited, impacting access to comprehensive healthcare for all patients. One solution to addressing this deficit includes modifying genetic counseling training programs to increase student enrollment. Fieldwork capacity, driven by a limited number of rotation sites and supervisors, produces a significant bottleneck to entering the profession. Other professions have reported on techniques to increase fieldwork capacity; however, the practicality of these techniques for genetic counseling training has yet to be explored. This study seeks to investigate the perspectives of key stakeholders in genetic counseling training programs on the practicality of techniques already posited in the literature from other allied health professions. Semi-structured focus group interviews with 25 participants were conducted at the 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors conference. Participants included program directors and supervisors from clinical, industry, and laboratory backgrounds. The focus group responses were analyzed using directed content analysis and a split coding technique, after which several themes emerged within the larger domains of rotation structures, systems infrastructure, skill-building methods, and other novel techniques to increase fieldwork capacity. Emerging themes included the importance of finding quality student placements rather than maximizing the quantity of participatory cases; a need for transparency about the transferability of skills learned from novel experiences; scaffolding student entrustment to expand supervisor capacity; and recognizing nuances in implementation for individual programs. Overall, the results emphasize the importance of openness in communication to manage expectations for students and supervisors, who may be more hesitant to try novel rotation placements and skill-building techniques. Genetic counseling programs may use these results to address the bottleneck of fieldwork capacity, increasing student enrollment.

Processing the process: Reflections on genetic counselor-led student supervision groups and practical tips for future facilitators.

Genetic counseling graduate students face growth and challenges across a variety of axes both personally and professionally throughout their training. The formation of leader-led supervision groups for second-year genetic counseling students has created a safe space for students to give and receive feedback, process their positionality in complex clinical scenarios and the medical system at large, dissect psychosocial counseling theory, and share personal and professional experiences with the overall aim of supporting their growth. This work requires faculty facilitators who are invested in student growth and operate from a framework of empathy, humanism, curiosity, and vulnerability. The authors share their reflections on stepping into the facilitator role with no prior experience other than their work in clinical genetic counseling in varied practice settings. Common themes across four cohorts of students are presented along with reflections on facilitator growth, consideration of student developmental stages, and the parallel process between providing clinical services to clients and educating students. The authors hope to highlight the value of processing cases, inspire other genetic counselors to engage in this work, and normalize the experiences of those already running genetic counseling student process groups.

Clinical genetic counselors' use of people- and identity-first language in regard to patients' identification with disability.

The language surrounding disabilities has evolved from derogatory terms to the adoption of people-first language. However, identity-first language is being advocated for by some within the disability community. Using the preferred terminology is crucial to demonstrate respect and prevent stigmatization, especially in healthcare settings like genetic counseling, where language can impact relationships with the community. However, the specific language practices of genetic counselors and their underlying reasons are unclear. This qualitative study explored the language practices employed by genetic counselors when interacting with individuals with disabilities. Fifteen interviews were conducted with genetic counselors who had clinical experience. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed that the perceptions and practices about language used with patients and disability communities overall varied, with overarching themes of people-first language is the preferred and default language, counselors mirror patient language with some exceptions, acknowledging the evolving nature of language, recognizing differences in language preferences, and reacting to outdated terminology. These findings show the importance of continuing education to stay abreast of preferred verbiage within communities and individual patients.

Genetic counselors outside of the genetics clinic: Roles, practices, and ethico-legal implications in light of lagging legal recognition across Canada.

Advances in medical genetics have led to a significant increase in demand for genetic services and expertise across almost all medical specialties. Genetic counselors (GCs) in Canada play key roles in genetic services both within and outside of the Genetics Clinic, while not being regulated or legally recognized as healthcare professionals (HCPs) in most provinces. Understanding whether GCs outside of the "traditional" Genetics Clinic influence patient care, their level of professional autonomy and supervisory structure is, therefore, important. In this study, we explore the current landscape of GC practice outside of the Genetics Clinic by describing positions, determining the professional scope of practice, as defined by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counselors (CAGC) and Canadian Board of Genetic Counseling (CBGC) core competencies, and by elucidating associated ethico-legal implications. An online survey was developed and distributed to GCs working with patient-related data in Canada in positions outside of the Genetics Clinic through the CAGC ListServ and accessed between March 5 and April 9, 2021. Thirty GCs were included in the study, with 16/30 in public healthcare system positions. Most respondents held roles with direct (11/30) and indirect (14/30) impact on patient care and management, and the majority reported performing their primary roles with minimal supervision (56%) or complete independence (36%). Most roles (22/25) elicited by respondents were considered to be within the GC scope of practice, except for administrative tasks and special projects. GCs were the only genetics-trained professional(s) in 8/30 of respondents' workplaces. The results of the current study support the value of GCs translatable skillset in positions beyond the Genetics Clinic, and outline ethico-legal implications for GCs, regulated HCPs, patients, and health institutions in the absence of legal recognition, including medical-legal liability and title protection. This study provides evidence in support of regulation of GCs as HCPs.

Graduate training, credentialing, and continuing education to prepare genetic counselors for laboratory roles-Results of a national survey.

Opportunities for genetic counselors to work in a variety of practice settings have greatly expanded, particularly in the laboratory. This study aimed to assess attitudes of genetic counselors working both within and outside of the laboratory setting regarding (1) the re-wording and/or expansion of key measures of genetic counselors' competency, including practice-based competencies (PBCs) and board examination, to include laboratory roles, (2) preparation and transferability of competencies developed in master's in genetic counseling (MGC) programs to different roles, (3) need of additional training for genetic counselors to practice in laboratory settings, and (4) preferred methods to obtain that training. An e-blast was sent to ABGC diplomats (N = 5458) with a link to a 29-item survey with 12 demographic questions to compare respondents to 2021 NSGC Professional Status Survey (PSS) respondents. Statistical comparisons were made between respondents working in the laboratory versus other settings. Among 399 responses received, there was an oversampling of respondents working in the laboratory (52% vs. 20% in PSS) and in non-direct patient care positions (47% vs. 25% in PSS). Most respondents agreed the PBCs were transferable to their work yet favored making the PBCs less direct patient care-focused, expanding PBCs to align with laboratory roles, adding laboratory-focused questions to the ABGC exam, and adding laboratory-focused training in MGC programs. Most agreed requiring post-MGC training would limit genetic counselors' ability to change jobs. Genetic counselors working in the laboratory reported being significantly less prepared by their MGC program for some roles (p < 0.001) or how the PBCs applied to non-direct patient care positions (p < 0.001). Only 53% of all respondents agreed that NSGC supports their professional needs and others in their practice area, and genetic counselors working in the laboratory were significantly less likely to agree (p = 0.002). These sentiments should be further explored.

A cross-sectional survey-based exploration of diversity in the admissions committees and student cohorts of genetic counseling programs over time.

As of 2022, 89% of genetic counselors report being White, and 93% report being women. We examined diversity in genetic counseling (GC) program admission committees (ACs-who are responsible for deciding who will make up the future GC workforce) and student cohorts to understand the impact of recent diversification efforts, and where future work should be focused. One representative from each AC of the 57 accredited GC programs in North America in 2022 was invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey to provide information on the diversity of GC ACs and student cohorts between 2019 and 2022 for the following dimensions: race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, neurodiversity, and rural or low socioeconomic status backgrounds. Members of 38/57 (67%) ACs participated. Using the Cochran-Armitage test for trends, significant increases were observed for the proportion of individuals of a racial/ethnic minority within ACs (from 9% in 2019 to 18% in 2022; p < 0.0001). There was no change for other minoritized social identities. There was no significant change over time in the proportion of students holding any of the minoritized social identities. A low correlation was found between the diversity of ACs and student cohorts. This study reaffirms the need for greater diversification efforts within ACs and student cohorts. Increased transparency about the social identities of AC members and about ACs' commitment to diversification may facilitate the diversification of the profession.

A qualitative study on the field experience of genetic counseling in Korea.

In Korea, genetic counseling services began with the opening of genetic clinics in the early 1990s; in recent years, demand for these services has increased. However, genetic counseling is not an officially recognized healthcare service under the Korean national health insurance system; further, its certification is not recognized as a medical qualification. To clarify the role and significance of genetic counselors, this study examined their field experiences. To this end, we conducted focus group interviews with 11 certified genetic counselors, six advanced practice nurses, and four regular nurses. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and examined using thematic analysis. We found that even though Korea did not recognize their roles, the participants met their responsibilities and primary duties. In addition, they faced challenges during counseling due to a lack of formal education in genetics and genomics. Moreover, they encountered dilemmas related to the legal and ethical aspects of decision support for family testing or prenatal diagnosis due to the complexity of rare genetic disorders. However, they attempted to acquire the specialized knowledge needed to support patients with rare genetic disorders and their families, gradually developing practical experience and specialized knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to develop manuals, establish systems, and improve working environments to provide high-quality and specialized genetic counseling. Additionally, there is a need for national support, such as establishing set wages for genetic counselors, developing a national qualification certification system, and securing dedicated personnel.

Transfer of embryos with positive PGT-M results: Genetic Counselors' perspectives and ethical considerations.

Increasing numbers of fertility patients use preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions (PGT-M) during in vitro fertilization (IVF). While PGT-M is primarily used to avoid implanting embryos with a monogenic condition, patients can request to transfer an embryo with the monogenic condition (positive embryo transfer), especially in cases where an IVF cycle results in no unaffected embryos. Transferring embryos with known disease-causing variants raises ethical concerns. There is limited understanding about how stakeholders in the assisted reproductive technology (ART) field approach these issues. In this study, genetic counselors were sent a survey to gather insight into their views about transferring embryos with different monogenic conditions. N = 99 genetic counselors completed the survey, 22 of whom had experience with patients requesting or deciding to transfer an embryo with a monogenic condition (positive embryo transfer experience). Most participants, including those with positive embryo transfer experience, were supportive of positive embryo transfer, regardless of the genetic condition. While participating genetic counselors were largely supportive of all patient decisions, they reported increased moral uneasiness around transferring embryos with life-limiting monogenic conditions, such as Huntington's disease. Further investigation into the experiences of genetic counselors who have experienced positive embryo transfer requests in practice can help delineate the ethical questions that ART providers face in this context and clarify how genetic counselors can contribute to establishing guidelines in the ART field.

Survey of patient satisfaction with genetic counseling services in Korea.

Since the 1990s, genetic clinics have been established in South Korea, enabling the provision of clinical genetics services. However, genetic counseling services are not widely used in the medical system. In contrast, recently, the demand for genetic counseling has increased due to the rapid development of genomic medicine. Therefore, it is important for medical geneticists and genetic counselors to collaboratively provide genetic counseling services. This study aimed to evaluate the perception and satisfaction of patients with rare genetic diseases and their families regarding genetic counseling services provided by a genetics team at the medical genetics center of a tertiary general hospital for rare genetic diseases. From April to November 2021, a survey was conducted with 203 individuals, including 111 and 92 individuals in the patient and family groups, respectively. Overall, 164 individuals (80.8%) responded that they were aware of genetic counseling services, and 135 individuals (66.5%) responded that they were aware of the role of genetic counselors. Patients and their families wanted to receive information about the following from genetic counseling: clinical manifestation and prognosis of the diagnosed disease (78.8%), treatment and management of the disease (60.6%), risk of recurrence within the family (55.7%), treatment options and alternatives for family and prenatal testing, and various support services. The score of satisfaction with genetic counseling services provided by the genetics team was 8.19 ± 1.68 out of 10. Patients with rare genetic diseases and their families were satisfied with genetic counseling services regarding their diseases, test results, and treatment options. Moreover, the patients could receive psychosocial support and referrals to other medical service providers and support services. As a genetic team approach, collaboration between medical geneticists and certified genetic counselors would be useful in providing information and in diagnosing, treating, and managing patients.

Genetic counselors' awareness and attitudes regarding gene therapies.

There are 10 gene therapies (GTs) for hereditary conditions that are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While prior research demonstrates that the majority of healthcare providers lack knowledge regarding GTs, this has not been explored within the genetic counseling profession. The authors hypothesize that the availability of GTs impacts the genetic counseling profession and that there is variable awareness on this topic among genetic counselors (GCs). We conducted a survey to assess GCs' familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing FDA-approved GTs at the time of the survey, as well as GCs' perceived impact of and educational experiences related to GT. The survey was distributed through listservs and word of mouth from January through March 2021. One hundred of the 109 responses met eligibility criteria. Respondents were more familiar with onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (ZOLGENSMA; Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., Durham, NC, USA) than voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (LUXTURNA; Spark Therapeutics, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA; p < 0.001). Familiarity with, comfort with, and frequency of discussing both GTs varied by specialty but not by years of experience. Fifty-nine percent of respondents (58/98) reported that GTs impact their work, with differences by specialty but not by years of experience. The majority of respondents (93%; 90/97) felt that GCs should be comfortable discussing GTs with patients, and most respondents (83%; 79/95) were interested in additional GT training. Only 38% of respondents (36/95) recalled GT being included in their genetic counseling training program's curriculum, which may be skewed by recent growth of this field. Our results suggest that GCs feel that GTs impact their practice, have discrepant awareness and comfort in this area, and desire additional training on this topic. Further investigation into the actual impact and models for addressing training is warranted and will be critical as the number of approved GTs increases.

Telesupervision in genetic counseling education during COVID-19 and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic led healthcare organizations to pivot to telemedicine, precipitating the shift to telesupervision, defined as supervision over video-conferencing platforms and telephone, for genetic counseling students. This study aimed to (1) characterize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on genetic counseling supervision, (2) ascertain genetic counseling supervisor experiences with telesupervision, and (3) examine the association between years of genetic counseling experience and preferences related to supervision modality. Certified genetic counselors were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), Pennsylvania Association of Genetic Counselors (PAGC), and Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) listservs and by purposive sampling via emails to Genetic Counseling Program Directors in program-rich regions. An investigator-created survey was administered online to elicit descriptions of supervision during the pandemic, including modifications to rotations, changes to the number of students supervised, and mode of supervision preference. The survey was completed by 122 genetic counselors. The 54-question survey included multiple-choice, ranking, and open-ended questions. The majority (95.9%) of the participants were female, with an average age of 32 years. Most (86%) of participants reported changes in their supervision practices due to COVID-19, including sole use of telesupervision (54.4%), decreases in rotation lengths (25.4%), and delays in rotation start dates (24.6%). Interestingly, 19.3% (22/114) supervised more students than before the pandemic, and 18.4% (21/114) of participants supervised fewer students. Approximately two thirds (67.5%) of supervisors preferred supervising students in-person, while 2.6% preferred telesupervision, and 29.8% had no preference. Those who preferred to supervise in-person had fewer years of experience than those who had no preference (median = 4 years vs. median = 7 years respectively, Wilcoxonp-value = 0.0418, effect size rpb = 0.19, small). Given the persistence of telemedicine beyond the pandemic, telesupervision may be necessary to train genetic counseling students. However, additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of telesupervision in facilitating student skill development and attainment of the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) Practice-Based Competencies (PBCs).

Cross-cultural validation of the genetic counseling outcome scale in Korea.

The Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS-24) was developed to measure patient-reported outcomes to evaluate the effectiveness of genetic counseling and testing services. In the current study, the Korean version of GCOS (K-GCOS) was developed to reflect the sociocultural characteristics of Korea, and its clinical applicability was assessed. Overall, 231 Koreans, including patients with genetic diseases and their family members, participated and completed the K-GCOS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scale, and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Validity was examined by assessing the correlations between K-GCOS scores and other relevant scale scores. Reliability was confirmed using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest scores, measured over 2 weeks. We performed exploratory factor analysis of the five structures of GCOS-24. For K-GCOS, four-factor structures were identified: "cognitive-behavioral control," "uncertainty about control," "hope," and "emotional regulation." Four original GCOS-24 items were removed because of low factor loadings and small inter-item correlations. K-GCOS-20 scores were positively correlated with SWLS (r = 0.456) and MHLC-internal (r = 0.213) scores but negatively correlated with HADS (anxiety r = -0.428, depression r = -0.469) and MHLC-internal (r = -0.278) scores. These findings demonstrate that K-GCOS-20 is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating genetic counseling services in Korea.

Coffee and conversation: A genuine dialogue on authentic professional learning between genetic counselor educators.

Lifelong learning is a term frequently referred to in the training and continuing professional development of genetic counselors. It implies the ability to continuously engage in self-motivated reflection to identify knowledge gaps and develop a learning plan to address identified needs or interests. In contrast to this definition, the path to continuing professional development for most genetic counselors involves attendance at conferences; yet much data suggest that other forms of learning are more effective at leading to practice change and improved patient or quality outcomes. These conflicting ideas beg the question: what is professional learning? A dialogue between two genetic counselor educators, both with advanced training in health professional education, shares personal beliefs regarding lifelong learning in the genetic counseling profession. This discourse represents an authentic conversation that was audio-recorded and transcribed with minimal editing to improve clarity and readability. The views presented in this dialogue are highly personal, yet grounded in educational theory. References are provided to those that desire further reading on the topics discussed. Several authentic learning strategies are described, including communities of practice, peer supervision, and personal learning projects. The authors consider ways to increase knowledge acquisition from conference attendance and discuss how learning on the job becomes embedded in practice. As a result of this discourse, the authors hope to inspire genetic counselors to reflect over their continuing professional development and consider their job as a learning environment that presents rich, ongoing, and unique opportunities for growth. The authors invite and challenge readers to identify learning needs and set goals for themselves to address those needs. For those with interest in education, it is hoped that the conversation sparks new or invigorated interest that will lead to novel or more effective learning opportunities with improved outcomes for patients, students, and colleagues alike.

Parental questions about sex chromosome aneuploidies regarding sex, gender, and sexual orientation as reported by genetic counselors in a prenatal setting.

The introduction of cell-free DNA screening has resulted in increased prenatal identification of sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs). This study aimed to evaluate genetic counselor experiences disclosing SCAs positive prenatal screening or testing results and genetic counselor-reported parental questions regarding sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Forty-eight prenatal genetic counselors completed the survey. When asked to quantify their experiences, 97.9% of counselors reported disclosing a SCAs positive screen result within the previous year, and 81.3% disclosed a diagnostic result. Of those counselors, 53.8% reported always or often receiving parental questions about sex, 33% always or often about gender, and 25% always or often regarding sexual orientation. Counselors were asked to share examples of parental questions following a positive screen or diagnostic testing for SCAs. Parental questions were stratified by karyotype and content analysis revealed questions about the fetus' sex, anatomy, reproduction, being cisgender, gender expression, behavior, being transgender, and sexual orientation. The examples of parental questions provided by genetic counselors suggested some parents may have misconceptions about the intersection of SCAs with sex, gender, and sexual orientation following prenatal screening or diagnostic testing. The majority of counselors (83.3%) agreed to some extent that they desired further education on responding to parental questions about SCAs. Findings from this research suggest a need for genetic counseling strategies that accurately and respectfully discuss SCAs in the context of sex, gender, and sexual orientation with prenatal patients.

BIPOC students' paths to genetic counseling: Results from a longitudinal qualitative study.

Despite diversity initiatives, the genetic counseling profession continues to exhibit limited racial and ethnic diversity, with relatively stagnant representation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals. Prior research has found that BIPOC high school and college students are less likely to be aware of genetic counseling and learn about it later than their white peers. Financial barriers and familial discouragement based on a preference for medical school may disproportionately impact BIPOC applicants. Here, we report the first set of results from a longitudinal constructivist grounded theory study exploring the training experiences of BIPOC genetic counseling students. Through reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with 26 first-year BIPOC genetic counseling students, we identified five themes pertaining to participants' paths to enrolling in a genetic counseling program: (1) Deciding to pursue genetic counseling, (2) Family's reaction to genetic counseling, (3) Deciding where to submit applications, (4) Barriers during admissions, and (5) Ranking programs. Participants discovered genetic counseling later in their academic journey, often necessitating gap years to complete admissions requirements. Limited guidance from advisors was commonly cited as a barrier by first-generation college students. Family support seems to be a key factor in participants' successful pursuit of genetic counseling, but participants described challenges explaining the career, particularly to parents who did not speak English. In addition, some participants encountered resistance about changing prior plans to go to medical school. Finally, while participants prioritized cost and location in their initial decision about where to submit applications, their ranking of programs was heavily influenced by experiences during interviews, where they favored conversational interviews and evaluated if they would "fit in" at the program. These findings underscore the need for proactive measures, such as early exposure initiatives, mentorship programs, and resources to facilitate family support, to promote diversity in genetic counseling.

The impact of cohort relationships on BIPOC genetic counseling students: Results from a longitudinal qualitative study.

The transition to graduate school is marked by stress, with academic demands and interpersonal interactions being primary concerns for genetic counseling students. For Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) graduate students, additional stressors caused by the "minority tax" and microaggressions impact their sense of belonging and inclusion. This prospective longitudinal study employed a constructivist grounded theory approach to investigate the experiences of first-year BIPOC genetic counseling students as they transitioned into the first year of their graduate training. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 first-year genetic counseling students at three key time points during their first year and analyzed them using reflexive thematic analysis. Here, we report themes related to stressors when transitioning into the genetic counseling training environment, the role of relationships as a source of support in navigating these challenges, and the impact of cohort dynamics on the training experience. Stressors included managing academic rigor and time demands, navigating microaggressions, reactions to discussions about diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ), and managing mental health. Peer relationships emerge as pivotal source of support, but challenging dynamics within the cohort negatively impacted participants, highlighting the importance of fostering an inclusive training environment. Since programs have less control over the composition of each cohort with the advent of the Match system in 2018, we recommend the use of community-building and debriefing activities to strengthen healthy relationships and address problematic dynamics. We recommend that training programs be proactive in creating mentoring relationships between faculty and students rather than waiting until students ask for help. Ultimately, we advocate for a holistic approach to genetic counseling training that maintains academic rigor but also prioritizes the creation of supportive, inclusive, and culturally sensitive learning environments for all students.

Identifying potential LGBTQIA+ competencies for genetic counseling student training.

The LGBTQIA+ community faces considerable health disparities. Developing and integrating LGBTQIA+ competencies into healthcare provider training programs is one way to promote inclusive high-quality care to potentially improve this community's health. Currently, there are no established LGBTQIA+-specific competencies for genetic counseling graduate programs (GCPs), so training across GCPs likely varies. This qualitative focus group-based study aimed to explore current topics related to genetic counseling (GC) for LGBTQIA+ patients covered in North American GCPs, their learning objectives, and LGBTQIA+-specific competencies that GC students (GCSs) should achieve by graduation. Eligible participants were program leaders at ACGC-accredited GCPs and/or faculty who taught LGBTQIA+-related content in at least one GCP over the last 5 years. A semistructured interview guide was used to conduct virtual focus groups that were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and an inductive iterative approach that generated themes regarding what content is taught and what knowledge, attitudes, and skills GCSs should demonstrate as a result. Thirteen people participated, including nine LGBTQIA+ people. They represented 12 GCPs (22% of current GCPs) across the United States and Canada. Focus groups ran 73-90 min. Transcript analysis identified six themes, framed as learning objectives (LOs), and 24 subobjectives. These included recognizing the breadth of the LGBTQIA+ community and their lived experience with the healthcare system, demonstrating respect for and responding to patient identities to provide inclusive GC, employing strategies to mitigate social aspects that influence health care, and assessing personal biases and the impact of socialization. Participants used several teaching methods including didactic lectures, simulation, written activities, reflections, and fieldwork experiences. The six identified LOs may be a starting point for GCPs looking to develop or refine their LGBTQIA+ curricula. Competency-based education may enhance GCSs' abilities to provide inclusive GC to the LGBTQIA+ community.

Development and verification of the Korean version of the genetic counseling self-efficacy scale.

A self-reported Genetic Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale (GCSES) was developed in English to measure genetic counselors' self-efficacy, a factor known to affect their job performance. This study verified the reliability and validity of the GCSES for use in Korea. The scale was translated and back-translated into Korean for cultural fit verification. Expert analysis was performed to ensure content validity. For construct validity, a confirmatory factor analysis of the six-factor structures of the GCSES and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the K-GCSES were conducted. To confirm the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the items, a multitrait/multi-item matrix analysis of the relationship between items and subscales was conducted. The reliability was evaluated by examining internal consistency and test-retest reliability. A total of 62 participants were recruited from certified genetic counselors associated with the Korean Society of Medical Genetics and Genomics and from four graduate schools offering genetic counseling programs. Confirmatory factor analysis showed an inadequate fit to the original GCSES structure. Through EFA, three-factor structures were identified: "counseling competence and psychosocial skills," "genetic testing," and "information gathering." Of the original 38 GCSES items, five were removed due to low factor loadings and small inter-item correlations. The item convergent validity and discriminant validity of the Korean version of the GCSES were established, and the correlation between the subfactors showed statistical significance (0.711-0.983). Cronbach's alpha was 0.985, and the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.882 to 0.897, securing reliability. The K-GCSES has a three-factor structure with acceptable reliability and sufficient validity. Differences in the factor structure between the K-GCSES and GCSES may be due to cultural factors. K-GCSES can be used as a tool to evaluate the competence of genetic counselors and genetic counseling students in Korea and to improve the quality of professionalism and education.