What do cancer genetic providers want us to know about variant reclassification and recontact that we are not asking? A thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses.

BACKGROUND: Accurate variant classification and relaying reclassified results to patients is critical for hereditary cancer care delivery. Over a 5- to 10-year period, 6%-15% of variants undergo reclassification. As the frequency of reclassifications increases, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients becomes important but remains contentious. METHODS: The authors used inductive thematic analysis to analyze open-ended comments offered by oncologists and genetic counselors (GCs) from a large national survey. RESULTS: Of the 634 oncologists and cancer GCs, 126 (20%) offered substantive free-text comments. Four thematic areas emerged: 1) ambiguity over professional responsibility to recontact, 2) logistical challenges with recontact, 3) importance of inter-institutional communication, and 4) suggested solutions. Some oncologists felt that laboratories, not them, are responsible for recontact; others believed that ordering providers/GCs were responsible; GCs readily acknowledged their own responsibility in recontact but added important caveats. Besides the lack of up-to-date patient contact information, providers raised unique challenges with recontact: financial instability of laboratories, lack of clinical resources, contacting family members, and accumulating burden of reclassifications. There were numerous calls for developing practice guidelines on prioritizing variants for recontact and discussion on whether duty for recontact may be fulfilled via unidirectional, low touch modalities. Potential solutions to recontact including national databases and patient facing databases were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The authors confirm previous themes of stakeholder opinions and add previously unreported contextual details to qualify those themes. Clarifying provider responsibilities through professional guidelines for reclassification and recontact addressing the subthemes identified here will better serve all constituencies.

Advancing Genetic Testing in Kidney Diseases: Report From a National Kidney Foundation Working Group.

About 37 million people in the United States have chronic kidney disease, a disease that encompasses diseases of multiple causes. About 10% or more of kidney diseases in adults and about 70% of selected chronic kidney diseases in children are expected to be explained by genetic causes. Despite the advances in genetic testing and an increasing understanding of the genetic bases of certain kidney diseases, genetic testing in nephrology lags behind other medical fields. More understanding of the benefits and logistics of genetic testing is needed to advance the implementation of genetic testing in chronic kidney diseases. Accordingly, the National Kidney Foundation convened a Working Group of experts with diverse expertise in genetics, nephrology, and allied fields to develop recommendations for genetic testing for monogenic disorders and to identify genetic risk factors for oligogenic and polygenic causes of kidney diseases. Algorithms for clinical decision making on genetic testing and a road map for advancing genetic testing in kidney diseases were generated. An important aspect of this initiative was the use of a modified Delphi process to reach group consensus on the recommendations. The recommendations and resources described herein provide support to nephrologists and allied health professionals to advance the use of genetic testing for diagnosis and screening of kidney diseases.

Refining the activities of genetic assistants: Development of task statements applicable across practice settings.

Although genetic (counseling) assistants (GAs) have been implemented in many institutions, their roles vary widely. Therefore, this study aimed to refine our knowledge of GA tasks across work settings and specialties. Tasks performed by GAs were extracted from peer-reviewed articles, publicly available theses, and job postings, then analyzed using directed content analysis. Briefly, task statements were coded using broad categories from previous studies, with new categories added as emergent. Coded tasks were combined and condensed to produce a final task list, which was reviewed by subject matter experts. Sixty-one task statements were extracted from previous studies and 335 task statements were extracted from job descriptions. Directed content analysis produced a list of 40 unique tasks under 10 categories (8 from original research and 2 from the data). This study design resulted in a refined list of GA tasks that may be applicable across work settings and specialties, which is an essential step towards defining the scope of GA work. Beyond the human resource applications of the refined task list, this work may also benefit genetics services by reducing role overlap, improving efficiencies, improving employee satisfaction, and informing the development/improvement of training and other educational materials.

Exploring the evolving roles of clinical geneticists and genetic counselors in the era of genomic medicine.

The increased utilization of clinical genomic sequencing in the past decade has ushered in the era of genomic medicine, requiring genetics providers to acquire new skills and adapt their practices. The change in workplace responsibilities of clinical/medical geneticists (CMGs) and genetic counselors (GCs) in North America, due to the evolution of genetic testing, has not been studied. We surveyed CMGs (n = 80) and GCs (n = 127) with experience in general/pediatric genetics to describe their current practice of clinical tasks and the change in regularity of performing these tasks over the past 5-10 years. Currently, complementarity of responsibilities between CMGs and GCs clearly exists but providers who have been in the field for longer have noted role changes. Trends indicate that fewer experienced CMGs perform physical exams and select genetic tests than before and fewer experienced GCs complete requisitions and write result letters. The frequency of CMGs and GCs who investigate genetic test results, however, has increased. This study provides insight into the changing landscape of clinical genetics practice. Our findings suggest that the roles and responsibilities of CMGs and GCs have shifted in the past decade.

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) in genomic variant interpretation: An innovative education strategy for the growing genetic counselor workforce.

The growth in genomic testing in healthcare requires a highly trained specialist workforce to ensure evidence based clinical germline variant interpretation. Genetic counselors form a core part of the clinical genomics multidisciplinary team (MDT) and represent a growing workforce participating in variant interpretation from data analysis to the patient consultation. Standardized, high-quality variant interpretation training for Genetic Counselors has historically been ad hoc and variable, with existing programs lacking capacity to reach the entire workforce. To address the requirement for scalable variant interpretation training for genomics healthcare professionals (HCPs), two Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) were developed. We analyzed the data from 17 Genetic counselors, as part of an evaluation cohort completing the first run of these MOOCs. Overall genetic counselors enjoyed the courses, felt they were clinically relevant and would recommend them to colleagues. Common challenges amongst the genetic counseling workforces included utilizing relevant databases and finding time in the workday to complete training. These findings suggest MOOCs could be an acceptable option to ensure a consistent and transferrable high standard of training, complimentary to existing curricula. They also hold the potential to facilitate large-scale education to update the genetic counseling workforce when changes in variant interpretation guidance occur.

Embedding simulation in genetic counselor education from the first week of training: Learning outcomes, standardized clients, and students' satisfaction.

Health professional educators routinely utilize simulation to prepare students for practice. However, there is little evidence to show whether simulation enhances learning for genetic counseling students. This study aimed to (i) develop simulation learning outcomes and standardized clients for genetic counselor student education and (ii) evaluate students' experiences of learning from face-to-face and virtual simulation in the first week of training in an Australasian master of genetic counseling program. Using the principles of co-design, eight experienced genetic counselors from across Australasia attended an online discussion and one-to-one meetings to develop simulation learning outcomes and build detailed authentic standardized clients. Six learning outcomes were identified: establishing an effective counseling relationship, eliciting information, assessing need, delivering difficult news and helping clients cope with complex emotions, effective communication and facilitating adaptation. Standardized clients were mapped to the learning outcomes and other requirements of the program. Between 2019 and 2022, 106 first year students participated in face-to-face or virtual simulation workshops with two standardized clients on Day 5 of their training. Following the experience, 103 students completed an anonymous survey using a modified version of a validated satisfaction with simulation scale (n = 49 face-to-face in 2019 and 2020 and n = 54 virtual in 2021 and 2022). Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Mean satisfaction overall was 95.9% (SD 3.5), 96.2 (SD 4.0) face-to-face, and 95.8 (SD 3.7) virtual. Overall, responses indicated that simulation-based learning and working with standardized clients was a valuable learning experience (100%), developed communication skills and created a sense of reality (99%). For a minority of participants (n = 4), the simulation was too challenging. Key learning related to consolidation of counseling skills, reflective practice, and preparation for clinical placement. In conclusion, exposing novice student genetic counselors to authentic clinical scenarios using standardized clients in face-to-face or virtual classrooms enhanced clinical learning.

Psychological characteristics of Japanese patients and their family members receiving genetic counseling: A single-institute exploratory study.

In Japan, clinical genetic services became available in the 1970s, and genomic medicine, including genetic counseling (GC), developed rapidly. However, research on the outcomes of GC in Japan is limited. Japan has a unique cultural context, and appropriate GC methods have not yet been optimized for this population. The current study aimed to evaluate the psychological status of Japanese patients and their companions undergoing GC and the outcomes of GC. We used the Quality of Care Through the Patients' Eyes-gene cancer (QUOTE-geneCA ), the Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale-24 (GCOS-24), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) to evaluate patients and their companions' needs and preferences regarding GC, empowerment, and anxiety, respectively. We evaluated stress status during GC by measuring saliva cortisol levels. QUOTE-geneCA results for patients (n = 69) and a group of patients and their companions (n = 96) revealed that participants felt that it was important that skilled medical staff explained medical information and provided advice in an easily understandable manner. Japanese patients and their companions regarded the procedural aspects of counseling as most important and their autonomy in decision-making as less important. GCOS-24 results revealed a significant increase in empowerment scores in 38 patients (by 9.63 points) from pre- to post-GC (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.79). STAI results revealed a significant decrease in state anxiety for patients (6.11 points; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.66). Cortisol levels in patients significantly decreased after GC (p = 0.001). The improvement of empowerment scores from pre- to post-GC among patients and their companions were significantly negatively correlated with pre-GC empowerment scores (p < 0.001), trait anxiety scores (p = 0.001), and the number of people living together (p = 0.011). The change of cortisol levels during GC in patients and their companions was significantly positively correlated with trait anxiety score (p = 0.027). This study suggested that these characteristics of Japanese patients and their companions may predict GC outcomes.

Evaluating attributes of a collaborative model of service delivery for hereditary cancer risk assessment.

The purpose of this nonrandomized study was to compare several attributes of hereditary cancer risk assessment using a collaborative model of service delivery. Arm 1 included patients seen in-person by a board-certified genetic counselor (CGC), Arm 2 included high-complexity triaged patients from distant sites who received telegenetics with a CGC, and Arm 3 included low-complexity triaged patients from distant sites who had in-person risk assessment with a locally placed genetic counselor extender (GCE). A total of 152 patients consented and 98 had complete data available for analysis (35 in Arm 1, 33 in Arm 2, and 30 in Arm 3). The three groups were comparable in age, ethnicity, education, employment, and cancer status. There was no significant difference in median wait time or distance traveled to receive care across all three arms. However, if patients in Arms 2 and 3 had to access the CGC in-person, they would have had to travel significantly further (p < 0.0001). The time spent in a session was significantly longer in Arm 3 with a GCE than with a CGC in-person or by telegenetics (p < 0.01). There was no difference in the number of essential elements covered in the appointment, change in cancer worry, or appointment satisfaction across all three arms, although the sample size was small. Employing a collaborative model of service delivery with GCEs and telegenetics is feasible, satisfactory to patients and reduces the distance patients travel to access hereditary cancer genetic services.

Genetic counseling clinic model expansion: Impact on access for general genetics clinic.

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) implemented a Genetic Counseling Clinic (GCC), where the appointment for a general genetics indication is conducted solely by a genetic counselor (GC). We conducted a retrospective chart review of 211 patient encounters scheduled in the GCC between January 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022 and collected patient demographics, wait time, appointment characteristics, referral indication, and clinical recommendations. To study impact on patient access, we compared patient demographics and appointment characteristics with 912 patient encounters scheduled in the General Genetics Clinic with a geneticist during the same time period. We found that there were not significant differences in patient demographics scheduled in the GCC as compared with the General Genetics Clinic with the exception of insurance type, where patients scheduled in the GCC were more likely to have private insurance. Patients scheduled in the GCC had a significantly shorter wait time, were more likely to complete their appointment, were more often new to the genetics division, and were more likely to be seen via telehealth (audio plus video or audio-only) as compared with patients scheduled in the General Genetics Clinic. The most common indications for patients scheduled in the GCC were post-test counseling (36.0%) followed by pre-test counseling and coordination of testing (22.3%), and first-line testing for autism, intellectual disability, and developmental delay (13.7%). Completed appointments in the GCC often resulted in the GC ordering genetic testing (67.5%). After genetic testing results were received, most patients (72.7%) did not require subsequent follow-up with the genetics division, thereby reducing burden to the medical genetics team. Our GCC increased access to genetic services and allowed GCs and clinical geneticists to better work at the top of their scope of practice.

The right not to know: Non-disclosure of primary genetic test results and genetic counselors' response.

As part of clinical genetic counseling practice, patients may request that their primary genetic test results be disclosed to someone else, such as a relative or referring provider, or request that results be disclosed to no one (non-disclosure). In making these requests, patients employ the ethical principle of the "right not to know," which argues that autonomous individuals can choose not to know relevant health information. Although the right not to know has been well-studied in medicine in general, and in the return of genomic secondary findings, we are not aware of other studies that have explored the return of primary genetic test results when patients request non-disclosure or disclosure to another individual. This study aimed to describe common clinical scenarios in which these requests occur, how genetic counselors respond, and what ethical considerations they employ in their decision-making process. We recruited participants from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) "Student Research Surveys and Reminders" listserv and conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 genetic counselors in the United States who described genetic counseling cases where this occurred. Interviews were transcribed and coded inductively, and themes were identified. Case details varied, but in our study data the requests for non-disclosure were most commonly made by patients with poor, often oncologic, prognoses who requested their test results be disclosed to a family member instead of themselves. Genetic counselors considered similar factors in deciding how to respond to these requests: patient autonomy, medical actionability of results for the patient and family, the relationship between the patient and the person to whom results might be disclosed, and legal or practical concerns. Genetic counselors often made decisions on a case-by-case basis, depending on how relevant each of these factors were. This study adds to the growing body of literature regarding patients' "right not to know" and will hopefully provide guidance for genetic counselors who experience this situation in clinical practice.

Assessing barriers to the career ladder and professional development for ethnic minority genetic counselors in the United States.

Ethnic diversity is not reflected within healthcare professions, including genetic counseling, where lack of growth and membership among minority colleagues extends to upper-level and executive roles. While diversity and inclusion-based topics have been emphasized, studies on potential barriers to career advancement in the field of genetic counseling have not received the same attention. Our study examined the current state of mentorship and sponsorship programs, the presence of diversity and inclusion initiatives, and opportunities for career advancement through the lens of a minority genetic counselor. Practicing genetic counselors in the United States identifying as part of any racial group, other than non-Hispanic White alone, were recruited through the Minority Genetics Professionals Network for survey participation. A 31-item survey was fully completed by 19 practicing genetic counselors from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, allowing for individual stories and accounts to be amplified. Results showed 16 of 19 participants had never been promoted in their current employment setting. Additionally, 7 out of 19 respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their company had a commitment to an ethnically diverse workforce within upper-level positions. Prominent themes identified from open-ended responses included lack of social connection with supervisors and the cross-race effect, a term referencing a tendency for individuals to better recognize members of their own race or ethnicity than others. Additional themes revealed feelings of isolation, need for support from White colleagues, as well as desired emphasis on sponsorship tailored toward professional growth. These findings demonstrate a need for proactive involvement in reaching ethnic and racial minority genetic counselors through companywide policy efforts, support and advocacy from White colleagues, and modification of cultural perception frameworks. Further focus and emphasis on these distinct but critical topics may be important in promoting increased diversity in upper-level positions in the field of genetic counseling.

Following NCCN guidelines within one hospital system in the United States: Comparison between cancer centers and genetic counselor utilization.

Genetic testing is an instrumental tool used to determine whether an individual has a predisposition to certain cancers. Knowing of a hereditary cancer predisposition may allow a patient and their family to consider high-risk screening or risk-reducing options. Genetic counselors work with physicians to identify patients at increased risk for genetic testing using available guidelines such as those provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Information within one hospital system's cancer registry was used to identify individuals who qualify for genetic testing. This includes patients with a history of cancer of the breast (diagnosis ≤45, triple negative (TN) ≤60, and male), ovaries, colon (diagnosis ≤50), or uterus (diagnosis ≤50). Within this hospital system's registry, there are six cancer centers. Data were collected from cancer centers that utilized genetic counselors (GCs), and cancer centers that did not (non-GC) to determine whether there was a difference in genetic testing rates between GC and non-GC cancer centers. An analysis of 695 patients demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of eligible patients undergoing genetic testing at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers (91.6% versus 68.7%, p < .001). Further analysis of specific cancers showed a significantly higher uptake of genetic testing for eligible patients with colon cancer (90.8% versus 50%, p < .001), breast cancer ≤45 (99.5% versus 86%, p < .001), and ovarian cancer (91.3% versus 62.8%, p < .001) at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers. There was no significant difference in the proportion of testing of TN breast cancer ≤60 or uterine cancer ≤50 between cancer centers. These data suggest that having a GC working within a cancer center increases the ability to identify and offer testing to patients who meet NCCN genetic testing criteria based on their cancer type.

Retrospective comparison of parent-reported genetics knowledge, empowerment, and familial uptake of cardiac screening between parents who received genetic counseling by a certified genetic counselor and those who did not: A single US academic medical center study.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital heart defect, which can cause severe cardiac complications. BAVs cluster in families and demonstrate high heritability. Cardiac screening for first-degree relatives of individuals with a BAV is recommended. This retrospective two-group study evaluated the impact of cardiovascular genetic counseling provided by a board-certified genetic counselor on parent-reported outcomes by comparing parental responses of those who received genetic counseling by a genetic counselor (GC group) for family history of BAV to those who did not (non-GC group). A retrospective chart review from May 2016 to June 2019 identified 133 pediatric patients with an isolated BAV. Parents of eligible probands were invited to complete an online survey assessing genetics knowledge, empowerment (Genomics Outcome Scale), and familial uptake of cardiac screening. Surveys were completed by 38/97 (39%) parents in the non-GC group and 20/36 (56%) parents in the GC group. The median genetics knowledge score was not significantly different between the two groups (GC group: 8, range 3-11 out of a maximum possible of 12; non-GC group: 7, range 2-11; p = .08). The mean empowerment score was not significantly different between the two groups (GC group: mean 24.6, SD 2.2; non-GC group: mean 23.2, SD 3.5; p = .06). The uptake of cardiac screening was significantly higher in the GC group with 39/59 (66%) total first-degree relatives reported as having been screened compared with 36/91 (40%) in the non-GC group (p = .002). Parent-reported outcomes in our study suggest that receiving genetic counseling by a board-certified genetic counselor significantly increased familial uptake of cardiac screening for first-degree relatives of pediatric patients with a BAV. Studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm the findings of this study; however, a referral to a genetic counselor should be considered for patients with a BAV.

Evaluating a general pediatric/adult genetic counseling clinic in a Midwest medical center.

In 2018, the Munroe-Meyer Institute for Genetics & Rehabilitation (MMI) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha, NE created a genetic counseling clinic (GCC) to increase access to genetics services and decrease the time spent between a referral and being seen in a general genetics outpatient clinic. In the GCC, genetic counselors led patient encounters and geneticists served as advisors, rather than primary providers. We conducted a chart review of 109 patients seen in the GCC from November 1, 2018, to March 16, 2020, and obtained information regarding patient demographics, indications, and clinical recommendations as a result of the visit. Most patients seen in this clinic were female (65.1%) and aged 19 years of age or older (54.1%). The primary indications for patients in this clinic included review genetic test results (42.2%), coordination of genetic testing for a known familial variant (30.2%), and concerns for personal or family history suspicious of a genetic condition without dysmorphic features (24.8%). The average patient wait time between referral date and appointment date in the GCC was 49.8 days. The two most common clinical recommendations made by genetic counselors in the GCC were genetic testing (56.1%) and/or follow-up with specialist (26.5%). These specialists primarily included endocrinology (n = 5), neurology (n = 4), cardiology (n = 4), ophthalmology (n = 3), and audiology (n = 3). We found that the GCC model may be appropriate for patients with (1) genetic test results requiring interpretation, (2) a known familial variant or (3) genetic testing recommended by a specialist physician. Descriptions of the indications and recommendations for patients seen in this GCC provide a framework for potential implementation of a GCC in other regions across the nation.

The genetic counseling profession in Austria: Stakeholders' perspectives.

In contrast to most European countries, genetic counseling in Austria, Germany, and German-speaking Switzerland is exclusively carried out by medical doctors. In this study, we investigate the perspectives of key clinician stakeholders in Austrian genetics services regarding prerequisites, opportunities, and challenges of implementing master's trained genetic counselors. Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions and thematic analysis were carried out with nine participants, mostly medical geneticists at different hierarchy levels from three Centers for Medical Genetics in Austria. Several Austrian medical geneticists strongly object to the implementation of non-physician genetic counselors, and representatives of 3/6 medical genetic centers declined to be interviewed. Semantic framing was identified as a critical factor: In German medical language, patient consultations carried out by medical geneticists are generally called 'Genetische Beratung' (genetic counseling), and many medical geneticists see themselves primarily as 'Genetische Berater' (genetic counselors). 'Genetic counseling' is specified as an exclusively medical task in Austrian law. There is apprehension that the introduction of non-physician genetic counselors could reduce quality and undermine the position of medical genetics as a clinical specialty. The situation in Austria resembles that in Germany. Our study highlights the need for a clear definition of roles, expertise, and scope of practice of different genetic professionals. The integration of genetic counselors into Austrian genetics services is most likely acceptable in multi-professional teams, closely affiliated with medical genetic services, and under the medico-legal oversight of medical geneticists.

Germline evaluation of patients undergoing tumor genomic profiling: An academic cancer center's experience with implementing a germline review protocol.

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) has the potential to identify germline variants in addition to its primary use of informing cancer treatment based on genetic alterations within the tumor. However, there are no formal consensus guidelines to identify patients who would be eligible for genetic counseling (GC) and germline testing (GT) testing in patients undergoing TGP. The purpose of this study is to describe an institutionally developed Germline Review Protocol (GRP) to evaluate adult cancer patient cases already undergoing TGP to determine GC referral eligibility. We report on our retrospective experience implementing this protocol into practice wherein 172 patients out of 638 patients reviewed (27%) were recommended for a GC referral over a 17-month time period. Of those 172 patients recommended for a GC referral, only 34 patients (20%) completed GC and GT. Among patients who received GT, 15 (44%) were positive for at least one pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant, seven patients (21%) were negative and 12 patients (35%) had at least 1 variant of uncertain significance (VUS). The primary reason GC and GT was not completed was because the patient moved to hospice care or was deceased. This is one of the first studies outlining the process and results of a formalized institutional protocol to facilitate patient referrals for GC and GT based on TGP results.

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review.

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

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.

Impacts of genesurance considerations on genetic counselors' practice and attitudes.

Genesurance counseling has been identified as an integral part of many genetic counseling sessions, but little is known about the workflow impacts and genetic counselor perceptions of genesurance-related tasks. In this study, we aimed to characterize how insurance and billing considerations for genetic testing are being incorporated into genetic counselors' practice in the United States, as well as describe current attitudes and challenges associated with their integration. An electronic survey was sent by email to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). A total of 325 American Board of Genetic Counselors-certified genetic counselors who provide direct patient care in the United States for at least 50% of their time were included in data analysis. Results showed that the frequency and timing of various insurance- and billing-related tasks were not consistent among respondents, even those practicing in similar settings. Inadequate training to complete tasks was reported by 64% of respondents, and 47% reported a lack of resources from their employer and/or institution to complete genesurance tasks. Additionally, only 38% of respondents agreed that insurance- and billing-related tasks were within the scope of the genetic counseling practice, and there was little consensus on who respondents believe is the most appropriate person to complete these tasks. When asked how genesurance considerations affected job satisfaction, 85% of respondents reported a negative impact. This study found an inconsistent genesurance workflow among genetic counselors practicing in the United States, a lack of consensus on who should be responsible for genesurance tasks, several challenges associated with completing these tasks, and identifies genesurance considerations as potential risk factors for genetic counselor burnout.

Familial implications of autoimmune disease: Recurrence risks of alopecia areata and associated conditions in first-degree relatives.

Alopecia areata (AA), a complex autoimmune hair loss condition, affects approximately 2.1% of the population. Individuals with AA have increased susceptibility to diseases such as atopy and autoimmune disorders, but little is known about first-degree relatives' risk to develop AA and associated conditions. Genetic counseling for multifactorial conditions, including autoimmune disease is complex, but potentially valuable. Anecdotally we know patients with AA ask medical providers about recurrence risk for family members as well as question whether they and their relatives are at risk for other conditions. Data on AA recurrence risks and comorbid conditions among relatives of affected individuals comprise valuable information that may guide clinical management by genetic counselors. This study investigated the recurrence risk of AA and compared the prevalence of associated conditions among first-degree relatives to the general population. The study also assessed the validity of self-reported conditions for a subset of participants. Relatives of individuals with AA (N = 155), recruited from the National Alopecia Areata Foundation Registry, completed telephone surveys about their personal medical history for 70 medical conditions associated with AA. Medical records for 60 participants were compared to self-reported responses. One-sided proportional tests, in which it is assumed the disease prevalence in first-degree relatives is higher than for those in the general population, yielded a 7.8% estimated risk of AA versus the general population prevalence of 2.1%. Furthermore, there are increased risks of 33 associated conditions, including atopy and other autoimmune conditions. Comparison of medical reports to self-reported conditions indicated only 12% was incongruent. The findings may help genetic counselors better serve patients and their families by informing them of lifetime risk estimates of developing AA and comorbid conditions, resulting in early diagnosis of autoimmune diseases in AA families. Findings also provide evidence supporting the validity of self-report data in AA families.