A Comparison of Telephone Genetic Counseling and In-Person Genetic Counseling from the Genetic Counselor’s Perspective

Growing demand for and limited geographic access to genetic counseling services is increasing the need for alternative service delivery models (SDM) like telephone genetic counseling (TGC). Little research has been done on genetic counselors’ perspectives of the practice of TGC. We created an anonymous online survey to assess whether telephone genetic counselors believed the tasks identified in the ABGC (American Board of Genetic Counseling) Practice Analysis were performed similarly or differently in TGC compared to in person genetic counseling (IPGC). If there were differences noted, we sought to determine the nature of the differences and if additional training might be needed to address them. Eighty eight genetic counselors with experience in TGC completed some or all of the survey. Respondents identified differences in 13 (14.8 %) of the 88 tasks studied. The tasks identified as most different in TGC were: “establishing rapport through verbal and nonverbal interactions” (60.2 %; 50/83 respondents identified the task as different), “recognizing factors affecting the counseling interaction” (47.8 %; 32/67), “assessing client/family emotions, support, etc.” (40.1 %; 27/66) and “educating clients about basic genetic concepts” (35.6 %; 26/73). A slight majority (53.8 %; 35/65) felt additional training was needed to communicate information without visual aids and more effectively perform psychosocial assessments. In summary, although a majority of genetic counseling tasks are performed similarly between TGC and IPGC, TGC counselors recognize that specific training in the TGC model may be needed to address the key differences.     

A New Definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force Report

The Genetic Counseling Definition Task Force of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) developed the following definition of genetic counseling that was approved by the NSGC Board of Directors: Genetic counseling is the process of helping people understand and adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of genetic contributions to disease. This process integrates the following: •Interpretation of family and medical histories to assess the chance of disease occurrence or recurrence. •Education about inheritance, testing, management, prevention, resources and research. •Counseling to promote informed choices and adaptation to the risk or condition. The definition was approved after a peer review process with input from the NSGC membership, genetic professional organizations, the NSGC legal counsel, and leaders of several national genetic advocacy groups.     

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.     

Ethical and Professional Challenges of Genetic Counseling – the Case of Austria

Genetic counseling is gaining in importance with the increasing application of genetic testing for diagnosis and clinical treatment. Genetic counseling often raises ethical and professional challenges and prior research has categorized them into 16 domains. The purpose of this study was to analyze the situation in Austria on the basis of these challenges and discuss it in the national and international context. While in some countries there is a special profession for genetic counseling, in Austria it is provided by medical geneticists or other physicians in the context of their specialization. Psychosocial professionals might be consulted or brought in if necessary. Results from 95 survey respondents (including physicians and psychosocial professionals) revealed a greater interest in the topic of genetic counseling by medical specialists other than medical geneticists. The most frequently encountered challenges among physicians were informed consent, organizational constraints, withholding information, and attaining/maintaining proficiency. The psychosocial professionals experienced maintaining proficiency and organizational constraints as the prevalent challenges. Additional findings and practice implications are presented.     

Women’s Experience of Telehealth Cancer Genetic Counseling

Telegenetics offers an alternative model of delivering genetic counseling to rural and outreach areas; however there is a dearth of qualitative research into the patient’s experience. Twelve women who had received telemedicine genetic counseling for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) within the previous 12 months participated in a semi-structured telephone interview. The interview explored women’s experience with telegenetics, satisfaction, perceived advantages and disadvantages and quality of the interaction with their genetic professionals. Overall women were highly satisfied with telegenetics. Telegenetics offered them convenience and reduced travel and associated costs. The majority of women described feeling a high degree of social presence, or rapport, with the off-site genetic clinician. One woman with a recent cancer diagnosis, reported that telemedicine was unable to meet her needs for psychosocial support. This finding highlights the need to be mindful of the psychosocial support needs of women with a recent diagnosis being seen via telegenetics. Patients attending for HBOC genetic counseling are generally highly satisfied with the technology and the interaction. Care should be taken, however, with patients with more complex psychosocial needs.     

A National Survey of Genetic Counselors’ Personal Values

Personal values are motivational sources for an individual’s actions [Hitlin and Piliavin (Annual Review of Sociology 30:359–393, 2004)]. Genetic counselors’ values may influence their behaviors in clinical practice, but a profile of their personal values has not been identified empirically. In this study, 292 genetic counselors completed the Schwartz Universal Values Questionnaire (SUVQ; Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). Boston, MA: Academic.), a widely used measure of value types, and provided information about their demographic characteristics. Results indicate that respondents highly valued benevolence, self-direction, achievement, and universalism indicating a strong pattern of concern for the welfare of others. They placed considerably less value on stimulation, tradition, and power, which reflect personal interests. Respondents who reported practicing a religion scored significantly lower on stimulation and hedonism and higher on tradition and spirituality than those not practicing; married respondents and parents scored significantly lower on stimulation and achievement; and males scored higher on power than females. The value types are described, and training and research recommendations are provided.     

Who Are the Next Generation of Genetic Counselors? A Survey of Students

Genetic counseling students were surveyed about their backgrounds, application process to genetic counseling programs, and career motivations and plans. Program directors from 27 accredited programs were asked to distribute 362 surveys to students. Fifty-two survey items assess demographics; sources of support for pursuing a genetic counseling career (information about genetic counseling, encouragement/discouragement from others); career motivations (reasons for applying and for becoming a genetic counselor); and career certainty. Two hundred and thirty-five usable surveys were returned (64.9% usable return rate). Most respondents were Caucasian females (mean age = 25.4 years). About 13% identified as ethnic minorities, and about one-third reported family histories of a genetic condition(s). Most respondents learned about the field in classes, and most were strongly encouraged by family and friends to pursue genetic counseling. Reasons rated as most important for becoming a genetic counselor included helping others and intellectual stimulation. Recruitment, training, and research recommendations are given.     

Genetic Counselors’ Perception of the Effect on Practice of Laws Restricting Abortion

In 2013, twenty-two states enacted seventy provisions restricting access to abortion. The legislation restricted access to abortions by instituting more regulations on providers and facilities, by prohibiting abortion prior to viability, by restricting funding available to patients and by requiring patients to wait a mandatory time period before having a procedure. Genetic counselors are trained to provide unbiased, comprehensive information in a non-directive style in order to allow patients to exercise their reproductive freedom. We developed a survey of 37 questions for genetic counselors to gauge the potential impact these provisions will have on their ability to be a patient advocate. A total of 286 individuals completed the survey; however, not all respondents answered all questions. Qualitative questions complemented quantitative survey entries, allowing respondents to input thoughts and examples. Results indicate genetic counselors in all regions share similar professional opinions about the provisions. More genetic counselors in the South and Midwest noticed changes impacting patients since the provisions have been enacted. These regional differences correlate with the location of states that have seem the greatest increase in antiabortion provisions.     

Is Self-Disclosure Part of the Genetic Counselor's Clinical Role?

The role of genetic counselor self-disclosure in clinical practice is unclear as there are few published investigations of this issue. In the present study, 11 genetic counselors who previously received genetic services were interviewed about their opinions and use of disclosure. Several themes were extracted from their responses. All participants reportedly disclosed to patients; however, not all disclosed their receipt of genetic services. Patient requests for self-disclosure influenced many participants’ disclosure decisions. Opinions regarding potential benefits of disclosure varied. Nearly all participants stressed the importance of self-disclosing judiciously, stating that it may be counterproductive to client goal attainment. Four individuals with expertise in genetic counseling and psychotherapy were invited to react to these themes and to provide their opinions of self-disclosure. Their views are compared to those of the present sample, and practice and research recommendations are given.     

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

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

Does Receiving Genetic Counseling Impact Genetic Counselor Practice?

This study was an investigation of whether genetic counselors have received genetic counseling and if so, how they believe it affects their practice. One thousand genetic counselors were mailed surveys about the nature of genetic counseling services received, impact on their clinical practice, frequency and reasons for disclosing about their receipt of counseling to their clients, and demographics. Ninety-three of the 510 respondents reported receiving genetic counseling. Of these, almost three-fourths were practicing genetic counselors while receiving services. Reasons for services include prenatal concerns, family history of cancer, and history/risk of other genetic conditions. Frequently endorsed effects on practice include increased empathy and understanding of client decisions, feeling more connected with clients, greater emphasis on psychosocial support, and sympathy. Forty-six respondents disclosed to clients about their receipt of genetic counseling. Prevalent reasons include client asked, help clients feel they are not alone, demonstrate counselor understanding, decrease client anxiety, build rapport, and normalize client feelings. Practice and research recommendations are given.     

The Client's Perspective of Genetic Counseling—A Grounded Theory Study

Previous studies of genetic counseling have mainly focused on outcomes defined by researchers or service providers, and have frequently related to changes in reproductive behavior and/or client knowledge. A longitudinal study of 43 families referred to a clinical genetic service was undertaken to ascertain client needs and expectations of the service, and to identify relevant outcomes from the clients' perspective. Semistructured interviews were conducted with each client, prior to and after genetic counseling. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using grounded theory. The need for certainty emerged as a powerful factor that motivated clients to pursue the genetic referral. The client's lay knowledge of the condition, satisfaction of the need for certainty, and the formation of a personalized relationship between the client and the genetics staff significantly influenced the central outcome, identified as a change in the client's psychological adaptation to the genetic condition in the family.     

Genetic Indigenisation in ‘The People of the British Isles’

In 2007, Channel 4 screened Face of Britain, a documentary about the genetic mapping of Britain. Face of Britain promised to reveal ‘who we really are’ by tracing genetic links back to ancient Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans. This article situates Face of Britain within the wider racial and national politics that it is invariably caught up in, and examines how ‘race’ and racial thinking are reconfigured in ways that are both ‘old’ and ‘new’. Face of Britain constitutes an interesting case study to examine how ideas of indigeneity are produced and naturalised in scientific discourses and practices. Here, indigeneity is mobilised through three sub-narratives: the ‘vanishing indigene’; the promise of facial recognition; and DNA and national relatedness. The analysis reveals how some people of the British Isles are naturalised as indigenous by virtue of their ancestral presence in this land through a combination of genetic and photographic technologies. In short, blood and soil are intertwined, with genes as mediators between ancestors and contemporary inhabitants of Britain. Furthermore, the invisible genetic connection is made visible through the creation of ‘average faces of Britain’, which is considered here as a contemporary version of physiognomy. In conclusion, Face of Britain testifies to the reconfiguration of ‘racial thinking’ in contemporary science, through what ultimately amounts to the genetic indigenisation of white Britons. Consequently, this study lends itself to racialised politics of land claims that resonate with, but are different from, indigenous politics in other contexts, namely with regards to the relationship to whiteness.