Sex Education and Intellectual Disability: Practices and Insight from Pediatric Genetic Counselors

Intellectual disability (ID) with or without other anomalies is a common referral for genetic counseling. Sessions may include discussions of reproductive implications and other issues related to sex education. Patients with ID regularly meet barriers when trying to obtain sex education due to the misperceptions of others as being either asexual or that such education would promote inappropriate sexual behavior. In this pilot study, we surveyed genetic counselors to explore their experiences with being asked to provide sex education counseling and their comfort in doing so for patients with ID ages 9–17. Results were analyzed from 38 respondents. Caregivers and patients most frequently requested information on puberty, sex abuse prevention, and reproductive health. Genetic counselors were most comfortable when they could provide sex education counseling within the context of a particular condition or constellation of features. They were least comfortable when they lacked familiarity with the patient, caregiver, or the family’s culture. The most frequently cited barriers that prevented genetic counselors from providing sex education counseling were lack of time, lack of training, the patient’s ID being too profound, and a belief that genetic counselors should not be responsible for providing sex education counseling. While many respondents reported that providing sex education counseling is not considered within the scope of a genetic counselor’s practice, they also noted that patients’ families initiate discussions for which counselors should be prepared. Respondents indicated that resource guides specifically designed for use by genetic counselors would be beneficial to their practice. Genetic counselors have the opportunity to embrace the role of advocate and broach the issue of sexual health with caregivers and patients by directing them toward educational resources, if not providing sex education directly to effectively serve the needs of patients and caregivers.     

Genomic Testing: a Genetic Counselor’s Personal Reflection on Three Years of Consenting and Testing

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is increasingly used in research and clinical genetics as the cost of sequencing decreases and the interpretation improves. Genetic counselors need to be prepared to counsel a diverse patient population for this complex test. This commentary is a reflection of one genetic counselor’s experiences in counseling, consenting, and returning results for clinical and research WES for over 120 participants and patients. She reflects on how she overcame the initial challenges and concerns of counseling for WES and how her counseling evolved from a teaching based counseling model to an interactive patient-center counseling model. Her insights are offered to prepare other genetic counselors for the growing use of genomic testing.     

Professional preparation of individuals who provide genetic counseling services

An unprecedented increase has occurred in demand for genetic counseling services during the current decade. This study examined the complex issue of who currently provides genetic counseling services and the professional preparation of these personnel. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 325 genetic counseling professionals in the southeastern United States who were members of the Southeast Regional Genetics Group (SERGG), National Society of Genetic Counselors, or American Society of Human Genetics States; 204 completed the questionnaire (63%). Seventy percent of respondents were female and 30% were male. Thirty percent of respondents held MD degrees; nine physicians held PhD degrees. Most physicians were male. Thirty-two percent of respondents held master's degrees in genetic counseling; five counselors held PhD degrees. Twenty-three percent of respondents were nurses; eight nurses held master's degrees. Three percent of respondents were social workers. Individuals with other degrees, such as an associate of science in medical technology and a doctoral degree in education, also provided genetic counseling. Genetic counseling typically involved a team effort, consisting mainly of physicians and genetic counselors. Most respondents reported college coursework in human genetics, supervised training, and seminar/workshop training. Thirty percent reported college coursework in counseling techniques, supervised training, and seminar/workshop training. Policy recommendations are offered concerning professional preparation of genetic counselors.     

Incorporating Social Media into your Support Tool Box: Points to Consider from Genetics-Based Communities

Patients with newly-described or rare genetic findings are turning to social media to find and connect with others. Blogs, Facebook groups, and Twitter have all been reported as tools for patients to connect with one another. However, the preferences for social media use and privacy among patients, their families, and these communities have not been well characterized. To explore preferences about privacy and membership guidelines, an online survey was administered to two web-based patient registries, Simons Variation in Individuals Project (www.simonsvipconnect.org) and GenomeConnect (www.genomeconnect.org). Over a three-month period, invitations were sent to 2524 individuals and 103 responses (4%) were received and analyzed. Responses indicate that Facebook is the most popular resource accessed within this sample population (99%). Participants used social media to look for information about their diagnosis or test results (83%), read posts from rare disease groups or organizations (73%), participate in conversations about their diagnosis (67%), and connect with others to find support (58%). Focusing on privacy issues in social media, respondents indicate that membership and access impact the level of comfort in sharing personal or medical information. Nearly 60% of respondents felt uncomfortable sharing photos or medical information within a public Facebook group, whereas only 12% of respondents felt uncomfortable sharing in private group targeted to families alone. Using this preliminary data concerning social media use and privacy, we developed points for genetic counselors to incorporate when discussing available support resources for patients with a new, or rare, genetic diagnosis or genetic test result. Genetic counselors are trained to provide anticipatory guidance to families adapting to new genetic information, and are well-equipped to help patients consider their preferences about using social media as a source of information and support.     

Attitudes of Genetic Counselors Towards Genetic Susceptibility Testing in Children

Genetic susceptibility research and testing is leading to an era of personalized medicine. Genetic counselors act as liaisons between the medical genetics community and the public. Understanding the opinions of genetic counselors will be important in developing testing guidelines. Attitudes towards genetic susceptibility testing in children were assessed for 216 NSGC members. Genetic counselors were likely to support testing if the results would determine: disease progression or prognosis, likelihood of survival after a specific treatment, or risk for an adverse drug reaction. Genetic counselors were unlikely to support testing to determine susceptibility to later disease development or in the absence of available intervention. There was a strong positive correlation between attitudes associated with desire to test their own child, if at risk and their support for genetic testing in any child at risk. Respondents strongly favored parent/guardian and child’s rights over doctor or insurance rights. They indicated assent should be obtained prior to testing, when appropriate, and that a copy of results should be kept in a permanent medical record. Respondents expressed concerns about insurance discrimination, testing in the absence of medical necessity, and taking away a child’s autonomy.     

Practice variability in prenatal genetic counseling

This study demonstrated that the content of prenatal genetic counseling sessions varied from counselor to counselor and from center to center. The study was designed to examine which specific issues were included by genetic counselors in prenatal genetic counseling sessions, and to determine which factors led genetic counselors to include or exclude this information from such sessions. Data were collected by randomly surveying 200 full, master degree members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). Respondents provided information by deciding which of 45 specific issues they would include in a standard prenatal genetic counseling session, and which one factor from a bank of 11 factors most accurately described the reason for this decision. The results indicated that the issues included/excluded from sessions varied widely among genetic counselors. The results also indicated that Patient Education/Informed Decision Making (34.5%) played the largest role in decision making overall, with Standard at Center/Departmental Policy (17.6%), Personal Experience/Preference (12.4%), and Applicability (10.9%) serving as the next three most important reasons for including or excluding issues from prenatal genetic counseling sessions.     

Genetic Counseling Services and Development of Training Programs in Malaysia

Genetic counseling service is urgently required in developing countries. In Malaysia, the first medical genetic service was introduced in 1994 at one of the main teaching hospitals in Kuala Lumpur. Two decades later, the medical genetic services have improved with the availability of genetic counseling, genetic testing and diagnosis, for both paediatric conditions and adult-onset inherited conditions, at four main centers of medical genetic services in Malaysia. Prenatal diagnosis services and assisted reproductive technologies are available at tertiary centres and private medical facilities. Positive developments include governmental recognition of Clinical Genetics as a subspecialty, increased funding for genetics services, development of medical ethics guidelines, and establishment of support groups. However, the country lacked qualified genetic counselors. Proposals were presented to policy-makers to develop genetic counseling courses. Challenges encountered included limited resources and public awareness, ethical dilemmas such as religious and social issues and inadequate genetic health professionals especially genetic counselors.     

An Exploration of Genetic Counselors’ Needs and Experiences with Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing

Because of the higher yield over traditional chromosomal analysis, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is being used increasingly in prenatal diagnosis. Unfortunately, the clinical implication of many copy number variants found on prenatal CMA is uncertain, complicating genetic counseling. Recognizing that uncertain results will be encountered frequently as more of the genome is assayed prenatally, we set out to understand the experiences and needs of genetic counselors when counseling patients about uncertain prenatal microarray results, their comfort with various aspects of prenatal genetic counseling, and their interest in additional education and training about prenatal microarray testing. We first interviewed 10 genetic counselors about their experiences of providing pre- and post-test genetic counseling about prenatal CMA. Based on the findings from the counselor interviews, we developed items for a survey to assess the prevalence of genetic counselors’ attitudes towards, experience and comfort with, and educational needs regarding prenatal CMA. Based on surveys completed by 193 prenatal genetic counselors, we found that when there is an uncertain CMA result, only 59 % would be comfortable providing genetic counseling and only 43 % would be comfortable helping a patient make a decision about pregnancy termination. Being less comfortable was associated with seeing fewer patients having prenatal CMA testing. Respondents expressed a high degree of interest in additional education about prenatal CMA and counseling about uncertain results. Further genetic counselor education and training aimed at improving counselors’ personal comfort with uncertain results and communicating about them with patients is needed.     

Counseling Customers: Emerging Roles for Genetic Counselors in the Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Market

Individuals now have access to an increasing number of internet resources offering personal genomics services. As the direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) industry expands, critics have called for pre- and post-test genetic counseling to be included with the product. Several genetic testing companies offer genetic counseling. There has been no examination to date of this service provision, whether it meets critics’ concerns and implications it may have for the genetic counseling profession. Considering the increasing relevance of genetics in healthcare, the complexity of genetic information provided by DTC GT, the mediating role of the internet in counseling, and potential conflicts of interest, this is a topic which deserves further attention. In this paper we offer a discourse analysis of ways in which genetic counseling is represented on DTC GT websites, blogs and other online material. This analysis identified four types of genetic counseling represented on the websites: the integrated counseling product; discretionary counseling; independent counseling; and product advice. Genetic counselors are represented as having the following roles: genetics educator; mediator; lifestyle advisor; risk interpreter; and entrepreneur. We conclude that genetic counseling as represented on DTC GT websites demonstrates shifting professional roles and forms of expertise in genetic counseling. Genetic counselors are also playing an important part in how the genetic testing market is taking shape. Our analysis offers important and timely insights into recent developments in the genetic counseling profession, which have relevance for practitioners, researchers and policy makers concerned with the evolving field of personal genomics.     

Expansion of Genetic Services Utilizing a General Genetic Counseling Clinic

We established a general genetic counseling clinic (GCC) to help reduce long wait times for new patient appointments and to enhance services for a subset of patients. Genetic counselors, who are licensed in Tennessee, were the primary providers and MD geneticists served as medical advisors. This article describes the clinic referral sources, reasons for referral and patient dispositions following their GCC visit(s). We obtained patients by triaging referrals made to our medical genetics division. Over 24 months, our GCC provided timely visits for 321 patients, allowing the MD geneticists to focus on patients needing a clinical exam and/or complex medical management. Following their GCC visit(s), over 80 % of patients did not need additional appointments with an MD geneticist. The GCC allowed the genetic counselor to spend more time with patients than is possible in our traditional medical genetics clinic. Patient satisfaction surveys (n?=?30) were very positive overall concerning the care provided. Added benefits for the genetic counselors were increased professional responsibility, autonomy and visibility as health care providers. We conclude that genetic counselors are accepted as health care providers by patients and referring providers for a subset of clinical genetics cases. A GCC can expand genetic services, complement more traditional genetic clinic models and utilize the strengths of the genetic counselor health care provider.     

Perceptions of Licensure: A Survey of Michigan Genetic Counselors

This study by the Michigan Genetic Counselor Licensure Committee is the first known published documentation of genetic counselors’ beliefs and attitudes about licensure. The response rate from genetic counselors in Michigan was 66% (41/62). Ninety-five percent of respondents were supportive of licensure. Respondents believed licensure would legitimize genetic counseling as a distinct allied healthcare profession (97.5%), increase the public’s protection (75%), and allow genetic counselors to practice independently (67%). While 45% felt licensure would increase counselor involvement in lawsuits, this did not impact licensure support (p?=?0.744). Opinions were split regarding physician supervision and ordering tests. Even though 28% favored physician supervision, there was overwhelming support for genetic counselors performing some components of genetic testing (95%) and ordering some types of genetic tests (82%) independent of a physician. Use of this survey may be helpful in other states to assess genetic counselors’ interest in licensure and for drafting legislation.     

Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

These cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at-risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Genetic Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Key components include the intake (medical and family histories), psychosocial assessment (assessment of risk perception), cancer risk assessment (determination and communication of risk), molecular testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (regulations, informed consent, and counseling process), and follow-up considerations. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.     

The Genetic Counseling Workplace—An Australasian Perspective. A National Study of Workplace Issues for Genetic Counselors and Associate Genetic Counselors

Genetic counseling in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) has been recognized as a profession since the 1980s and has steadily expanded over the past 20 years. The demography of major cities with metropolitan sprawl and sparsely populated rural areas has led to the establishment of 3 types of genetics units: main units in cities, metropolitan outreach, and rural outreach units. A questionnaire was developed to obtain information about the needs, resources, and day-to-day operation of the genetic counselors. The questionnaire addressed the areas of resource availability, professional development, responsibility of genetic counselors in the clinical setting, and their involvement in promotion of the service and public education. Differences observed between the 3 settings in all of these areas included large clinical loads for metropolitan outreach counselors, varying responsibilities in the clinical setting, and a lack of support and resources for rural outreach counselors. Australasian Genetic counselors were found to have a significant interest in developing mechanisms for supervision and were keenly interested in maintaining credentials and professional role development. The results of this study allows genetic counselors themselves to have a better understanding of the roles of their colleagues in the different units; they can also be used by service providers in establishing and supporting genetic counselors, and identifying inequalities and deficiencies in the different practice areas.     

Genetic Information,Non-Discrimination,and Privacy Protections in Genetic Counseling Practice

The passage of the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act (GINA) was hailed as a pivotal achievement that was expected to calm the fears of both patients and research participants about the potential misuse of genetic information. However, 6 years later, patient and provider awareness of legal protections at both the federal and state level remains discouragingly low, thereby, limiting their potential effectiveness. The increasing demand for genetic testing will expand the number of individuals and families who could benefit from obtaining accurate information about the privacy and anti-discriminatory protections that GINA and other laws extend. In this paper we describe legal protections that are applicable to individuals seeking genetic counseling, review the literature on patient and provider fears of genetic discrimination and examine their awareness and understandings of existing laws, and summarize how genetic counselors currently discuss genetic discrimination. We then present three genetic counseling cases to illustrate issues of genetic discrimination and provide relevant information on applicable legal protections. Genetic counselors have an unprecedented opportunity, as well as the professional responsibility, to disseminate accurate knowledge about existing legal protections to their patients. They can strengthen their effectiveness in this role by achieving a greater knowledge of current protections including being able to identify specific steps that can help protect genetic information.     

Have You Ever Googled a Patient or Been Friended by a Patient? Social Media Intersects the Practice of Genetic Counseling

Patients and healthcare providers are becoming increasingly connected via social media, bringing new opportunities and challenges. Direct connection can occur between patients and providers using online tools such as Facebook and LinkedIn. In addition, providers can gather information about patients using a search engine such as Google, referred to as patient-targeted Googling (PTG). An online 54-item survey was used to gain information on (1) how and to what extent genetic counseling students and genetic counselors connect directly with patients via social media sites, and (2) gather information on providers using PTG. Four hundred genetic counseling students and genetic counselors participated in the survey. The majority of respondents (88.9%; n?=?344/387) find it is never or rarely acceptable to interact with current patients via social media sites; however, 27.7% (n?=?110/397) have visited a patient’s social media site. Gathering information for patient care was the most commonly reported reason (76.8%; n?=?43/56). Thirty-three percent (n?=?130/394) have considered searching online or actually searched online for information about a patient. Curiosity was the most common reason (92.7%; n?=?114/123); although, respondents also used PTG to obtain contact information and to prepare for patient sessions. Our study supports the need for development and dissemination of professional guidelines to serve as a valuable resource for practicing genetic counselors and genetic counseling training programs.     

Emerging quality improvement measures in genetic counseling

The need to establish guidelines for total quality management in genetic counseling is now recognized as new genetic technologies are being introduced into genetics services and primary care. Genetic counselors have an important role in developing methods for assuring quality in the genetic counseling process. Emerging quality improvement measures as well as selected examples from the Quality Assurance Program in the Genetics Services Division at the Foundation for Blood Research are presented as examples of direct genetic counselor involvement. Suggestions for future directions of quality improvement activities for genetic counselors are discussed.     

Reproductive Endocrinologists’ Utilization of Genetic Counselors for Oncofertility and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Treatment of <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1/2</Emphasis> Mutation Carriers

Genetic counselors believe fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) discussions to be a part of their role when counseling BRCA1/2 mutation-positive patients. This study is the first to explore reproductive endocrinologists’ (REI) practices and attitudes regarding involvement of genetic counselors in the care of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers seeking fertility preservation and PGD. A survey was mailed to 1000 REIs from Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (SREI), an American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) affiliate group. A 14.5 % response rate was achieved; data was analyzed using SPSS software. The majority of participating REIs were found to recommend genetic counseling to cancer patients considering fertility preservation (82 %) and consult with a genetic counselor regarding PGD for hereditary cancer syndromes (92 %). Additionally, REIs consult genetic counselors regarding PGD patient counseling (88 %), genetic testing (78 %), and general genetics questions (66 %). Two areas genetic counselors may further aid REIs are: elicitation of family history, which is useful to determine fertility preservation and PGD intervention timing (32 % of REIs utilize a cancer family history to determine intervention timing); and, interpretation of variants of uncertain significance (VOUS) as cancer panel genetic testing becomes more common (36 % of REIs are unfamiliar with VOUS). Given our findings, the Oncofertility Consortium® created an online resource for genetic counselors focused on fertility preservation education and communication strategies.