Genetic Counselors’ Experiences with Adolescent Patients in Prenatal Genetic Counseling

Adolescents comprise a portion of women who present to genetic counselors prenatally. In this study, prenatal genetic counselors (N = 128) were surveyed regarding their perceptions of genetic counseling sessions for adolescent (ages 13–19) and adult (ages 20–34) patients. Counselors perceived differences in methods used to communicate risk information for adolescent versus adult populations. Respondents reported that it is more difficult for adolescents to understand prognostic information than adults. They also noted differences between adult and adolescent populations with respect to the people who typically accompany the patient to the session. Respondents stated that adolescents were accompanied by a parent, friend, or sibling, which differed from adults who reportedly were accompanied by a significant other, father of the pregnancy, or by no one. These findings suggest it is important to recognize that adolescent patients are in a unique stage of their development which may influence a prenatal genetic counseling session.     

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.     

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.     

Educating Genetic Counselors in Australia—Developing a Masters Program

In 2005 a publication about genetic counseling training in Australia recommended that a 2 year Masters program be established to better equip Australian genetic counselors with increased clinical skills and genetic knowledge (Sahhar et al. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14(4), 283–294, 2005). A 2 year Masters program, it was argued, would increase the possibility of international reciprocity, thus increasing the employment opportunities for Australian trained genetic counselors overseas. In 2008 the first 2 year professional Masters program in Australia began at the University of Melbourne. The model for how this was achieved is discussed, along with the impact of the competencies developed by the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (Australia and New Zealand), on program evolution, teaching styles and clinical supervision. The principal challenges in developing the Masters program are explored and initiatives specific to SE Asia are discussed.     

Characterizing Clinical Genetic Counselors’ Countertransference Experiences: an Exploratory Study

Countertransference (CT) refers to conscious and unconscious emotions, fantasies, behaviors, perceptions, and psychological defenses genetic counselors experience in response to any aspect of genetic counseling situations (Weil 2010). Some authors theorize about the importance of recognizing and managing CT, but no studies solely aim to explore genetic counselors’ experiences of the phenomenon. This study examined the extent to which clinical genetic counselors’ perceive themselves as inclined to experience CT, gathered examples of CT encountered in clinical situations, and assessed their CT management strategies. An anonymous online survey, sent to NSGC members, yielded 127 usable responses. Participants completed Likert-type items rating their CT propensities; 57 of these individuals also provided examples of CT they experienced in their practice. Factor analysis of CT propensities tentatively suggested four factors: Control, Conflict Avoidance, Directiveness, and Self-Regulation, accounting for 38.5% of response variance. Thematic analysis of CT examples yielded five common triggers: general similarity to patient, medical/genetic similarity, angry patients, patient behaves differently from counselor expectations, and disclosing bad news; six common manifestations: being self-focused, projecting feelings onto the patient, intense emotional reaction to patient, being overly invested, disengagement, and physical reaction; five CT effects: disruption in rapport building, repaired empathy, over-identification, conversation does not reach fullest potential, and counselor is drained emotionally; and three management strategies: recognizing CT as it occurs, self-reflection, and consultation. Results suggest CT is a common experience, occurring in both “routine” and emotionally complex cases. Training programs, continuing education, and peer supervision might include discussion of CT, informed by examples from the present study, to increase genetic counselor awareness and skills for managing the phenomenon.     

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.     

Examining the Relationship Between Genetic Counselors’ Attitudes Toward Deaf People and the Genetic Counseling Session

Given the medical and cultural perspectives on deafness it is important to determine if genetic counselors’ attitudes toward deaf people can affect counseling sessions for deafness genes. One hundred fifty-eight genetic counselors recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv completed an online survey assessing attitudes toward deaf people and scenario-specific comfort levels discussing and offering genetic testing for deafness. Respondents with deaf/Deaf friends or who work in prenatal or pediatric settings had more positive attitudes toward deaf people than those without deaf/Deaf friends or those working in ‘other’ settings. More positive attitudes toward deaf people correlated with higher comfort level talking about genetic testing for the two scenarios involving culturally Deaf clients; and correlated with higher comfort level offering genetic testing to culturally Deaf clients wishing to have a deaf child. Attitudes and comfort level were not correlated in the scenarios involving hearing or non-culturally deaf clients. These results suggest that genetic counselors’ attitudes could affect information provision and the decision making process of culturally Deaf clients. Cultural sensitivity workshops in genetic counseling training programs that incorporate personal interactions with culturally Deaf individuals are recommended. Additional suggestions for fostering personal interactions 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’ Views and Experiences with the Clinical Integration of Genome Sequencing

In recent years, new sequencing technologies known as next generation sequencing (NGS) have provided scientists the ability to rapidly sequence all known coding as well as non-coding sequences in the human genome. As the two emerging approaches, whole exome (WES) and whole genome (WGS) sequencing, have started to be integrated in the clinical arena, we sought to survey health care professionals who are likely to be involved in the implementation process now and/or in the future (e.g., genetic counselors, geneticists and nurse practitioners). Two hundred twenty-one genetic counselors— one third of whom currently offer WES/WGS—participated in an anonymous online survey. The aims of the survey were first, to identify barriers to the implementation of WES/WGS, as perceived by survey participants; second, to provide the first systematic report of current practices regarding the integration of WES/WGS in clinic and/or research across the US and Canada and to illuminate the roles and challenges of genetic counselors participating in this process; and third to evaluate the impact of WES/WGS on patient care. Our results showed that genetic counseling practices with respect to WES/WGS are consistent with the criteria set forth in the ACMG 2012 policy statement, which highlights indications for testing, reporting, and pre/post test considerations. Our respondents described challenges related to offering WES/WGS, which included billing issues, the duration and content of the consent process, result interpretation and disclosure of incidental findings and variants of unknown significance. In addition, respondents indicated that specialty area (i.e., prenatal and cancer), lack of clinical utility of WES/WGS and concerns about interpretation of test results were factors that prevented them from offering this technology to patients. Finally, study participants identified the aspects of their professional training which have been most beneficial in aiding with the integration of WES/WGS into the clinical setting (molecular/clinical genetics, counseling and bioethics) and suggested that counseling aids (to assist them when explaining aspects of these tests to patients) and webinars focused on WES/WGS (for genetic counselors and other health care professionals) would be useful educational tools. Future research should permit us to further enhance our knowledge of pitfalls and benefits associated with the introduction of these powerful technologies in patient care and to further explore the roles and opportunities for genetic counselors in this rapidly evolving field.     

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.     

An Investigation of Relationships among Genetic Counselors’ Supervision Skills and Multicultural Counseling Competence

As racial and ethnic diversity increase in the U.S., genetic counselor multicultural competence is growing in importance. In mental health counseling, supervisor multicultural competence has been shown to promote supervisees’ multicultural competence. Moreover, developmentally-advanced supervisors tend to be more effective. This study was designed to investigate relationships among genetic counselor supervisors’ perceived multicultural counseling competence and development as supervisors, and their ability to evaluate a supervisee’s multicultural skills. One hundred twenty-two supervisors completed an online survey of demographics, the Multicultural Counseling Knowledge and Awareness Scale, the Supervisor Development Scale, and a hypothetical vignette in which they evaluated a supervisee’s multicultural skills and provided written feedback. Stepwise multiple regression yielded five significant predictors accounting for 31% of the variance in accuracy of supervisor evaluations of the student: multicultural awareness, multicultural knowledge, age, supervision experience, and supervisor development. Six feedback themes were identified from written responses. Practice and research suggestions are provided.     

Genetic Counselors’ Current Use of Personal Health Records-Based Family Histories in Genetic Clinics and Considerations for Their Future Adoption

Given the widespread adoption of electronic medical records and recent emergence of electronic family history tools, we examined genetic counselors’ perspectives on the emerging technology of the personal health record (PHR)-based family history tool that links to an electronic medical record (EMR). Two-hundred thirty-three genetic counselors responded to an on-line survey eliciting current use of electronic family history (EFH) tools and familiarity with PHR-based family history tools. Additionally, after being shown a series of screen shots of a newly developed PHR-based family history tool based on the U.S. Surgeon General’s My Family Health Portrait (United States Department of Health and Human Services 2009), participants were surveyed about the perceived usefulness, ease of use, and impact on current workflow that this kind of tool would have in their practices. Eighty-three percent reported that their institution has an EMR, yet only 35 % have a dedicated space for family history. Eighty-two percent reported that less than 5 % of their patients have a PHR, and only 16 % have worked with patients who have a PHR. Seventy-two percent or more agreed that a PHR-based family history tool would facilitate communication, increase accuracy of information, ensure consistency in recording information, increase focus on actual counseling, reduce repetitive questions, improve efficiency, and increase the legibility and clarity. Our findings suggest that participants were familiar with existing EFH tools, but that the majority did not use them in practice. Genetic counselors’ adoption of such tools is limited due to non-existence of this kind of technology or inability to integrate it into their clinics. They are also strongly in favor of adopting a PHR-based family history tool in genetics clinics, but have practical concerns that must be addressed before the tool can be implemented.     

Genetic Counselors’ Perspectives and Practices Regarding Expanded Carrier Screening after Initial Clinical Availability

Expanded carrier screening (ECS), introduced in 2009, identifies carriers for dozens or hundreds of recessive diseases. At the time of its introduction into clinical use, perspectives of the genetic counseling community regarding ECS were unknown. We conducted a survey in early 2012 of GCs and report the results here. They represent a snapshot of opinions and usage at that time, providing a baseline for comparison as the technology continues to evolve and as usage increases. The survey assessed personal perspectives, opinions on clinical implementation and clinical utilization of ECS. The sample included 337 GCs of varying clinical fields, of whom 150 reported practicing in reproductive settings. Our findings demonstrate that, at the time, GCs indicated general agreement with ECS as a concept – for example, most GCs agreed that carrier screening should address diseases outside of current guidelines and also indicated personal interest in electing ECS. There were also disagreements or concerns expressed regarding appropriate pre- and post-test counseling (e.g., the content and delivery mode of adequate informed consent) and practical implementation (e.g., the amount of time available for follow-up care). This was the first quantitative study of a large number of GCs and it revealed initial overall support for ECS among the GC profession. The authors plan to re-administer a similar survey, which may reveal changes in opinions and/or utilization over time. A follow up survey would also allow further exploration of questions uncovered by these data.     

How Do Geneticists and Genetic Counselors Counsel Women from High-Risk Breast Cancer Families?

This qualitative study asked Australian Genetic Counselors and Clinical Geneticists working in cancer genetics to describe their practice when a woman attends a consultation about her family history and her risk of developing breast cancer. Twenty-nine out of 36 Clinical Geneticists/Genetic Counselors returned the questionnaire (82%). Participants identified the key goals of the consultation as (a) identifying the individual needs and concerns of the woman, (b) providing information on genes and chromosomes, (c) giving an individual risk assessment in the context of supportive interaction, and (d) discussing the pros and cons of genetic testing and putting a surveillance plan into place. Respondents emphasized the dual importance of counseling/support and information provision in this setting, suggesting that one could not be given without the other. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.     

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.