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acknowledging the evolving nature of language, recognizing differences in language preferences, and reacting to outdated terminology.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.

Analysis of a Statewide Early Intervention Program for Young Children with ASD.

We evaluated the effectiveness of a statewide Medicaid program providing in-home Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention services to young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder living in a rural southern state. Program effectiveness was assessed via the Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-Revised (ABLLS-R). A multi-level growth model was used to show significant variation among children's initial ABLLS-R scores and their growth trajectories. Hispanic children tended to have lower initial scores but demonstrated similar growth compared to their non-Hispanic peers. Children who were older at initial start in the program appeared to have higher initial composite scores and higher growth trajectories. Children in more populous counties had higher initial scores but grew at similar rates to children in more rural counties.