Attributes and roles assigned to characters in children's writing: Sex differences and sex-role perceptions

This research examined the creative writing of 180 elementary school children for evidence of sex difference and sex-role perceptions. Stories were analyzed for frequency of male and female characters, attributes, and roles. Writers were equally divided by sex and into three age groups—grades 1–2, 3–4, and 5–6. Results suggest that the total number of characters, roles, and attributes was equivalent. However, the distribution of male and female characters, roles, and attributes differed with male and female writers. Female writers included significantly more female characters and assigned more attributes and roles to these characters. Nevertheless, in the stories of both male and female writers, there was a predominance of male characters and assignment of attributes and roles to male characters. The findings support the development and implementation of a nonsexist curriculum.     

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.     

Developing a Model of Advanced Training to Promote Career Advancement for Certified Genetic Counselors: An Investigation of Expanded Skills,Advanced Training Paths,and Professional Opportunities

There are currently multiple paths through which genetic counselors can acquire advanced knowledge and skills. However, outside of continuing education opportunities, there are few formal training programs designed specifically for the advanced training of genetic counselors. In the genetic counseling profession, there is currently considerable debate about the paths that should be available to attain advanced skills, as well as the skills that might be needed for practice in the future. The Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) convened a national committee, the Committee on Advanced Training for Certified Genetic Counselors (CATCGC), to investigate varied paths to post-master’s training and career development. The committee began its work by developing three related grids that view career advancement from the viewpoints of the skills needed to advance (skills), ways to obtain these skills (paths), and existing genetic counselor positions that offer career change or advancement (positions). Here we describe previous work related to genetic counselor career advancement, the charge of the CATCGC, our preliminary work in developing a model through which to view genetic counselor advanced training and career advancement opportunities, and our next steps in further developing and disseminating the model.     

“Be Prepared if I Bring It Up:” Patients’ Perceptions of the Utility of Religious and Spiritual Discussion During Genetic Counseling

As debates continue about the relevance of religion to health care, research is needed to guide decisions about whether genetic counselors (GCs) should routinely address religious and/or spiritual (R/S) issues with their patients. We conducted an online survey to gauge patient perspectives on this issue. Among the 70 respondents, frequencies of closed-ended responses and thematic analyses of open-ended responses revealed multiple patient concerns related to R/S discussions with GCs. Although 60 respondents reported being R/S, only a small minority would want to discuss R/S issues if it meant less time discussing medical information. Most respondents also expressed opinions that: 1) genetic counseling should be about science; 2) GCs are not qualified to discuss R/S issues; 3) other outlets are available to meet the needs of patients who want R/S counseling; and/or 4) R/S discussions are more likely to be acceptable if patients broach the topic or in specific circumstances (e.g., when patients are facing end-of life issues). Overall, responses suggest routine or comprehensive R/S assessments or discussions are not necessary and that GCs would be best equipped to help all their patients if they were prepared to listen, be supportive, and make referrals when R/S issues arise in clinic.     

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.     

Models of Service Delivery for Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment and Counseling

Increasing awareness of and the potentially concomitant increasing demand for cancer genetic services is driving the need to explore more efficient models of service delivery. The aims of this study were to determine which service delivery models are most commonly used by genetic counselors, assess how often they are used, compare the efficiency of each model as well as impact on access to services, and investigate the perceived benefits and barriers of each. Full members of the NSGC Familial Cancer Special Interest Group who subscribe to its listserv were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Eligible respondents were asked which of ten defined service delivery models they use and specific questions related to aspects of model use. One-hundred ninety-two of the approximately 450 members of the listserv responded (42.7 %); 177 (92.2 %) had provided clinical service in the last year and were eligible to complete all sections of the survey. The four direct care models most commonly used were the (traditional) face-to-face pre- and post-test model (92.2 %), the face-to-face pretest without face-to-face post-test model (86.5 %), the post-test counseling only for complex results model (36.2 %), and the post test counseling for all results model (18.3 %). Those using the face-to-face pretest only, post-test all, and post-test complex models reported seeing more new patients than when they used the traditional model and these differences were statistically significantly. There were no significant differences in appointment wait times or distances traveled by patients when comparing use of the traditional model to the other three models. Respondents recognize that a benefit of using alternative service delivery models is increased access to services; however, some are concerned that this may affect quality of care.     

Comparison of Informed Consent Preferences for Multiplex Genetic Carrier Screening among a Diverse Population

Multiplex genetic carrier screening is increasingly being integrated into reproductive care. Obtaining informed consent becomes more challenging as the number of screened conditions increases. Implementing a model of generic informed consent may facilitate informed decision-making. Current Wayne State University students and staff were invited to complete a web-based survey by blast email solicitation. Participants were asked to determine which of two generic informed consent scenarios they preferred: a brief versus a detailed consent. They were asked to rank the importance of different informational components in making an informed decision and to provide demographic information. Comparisons between informational preferences, demographic variables and scenario preferences were made. Six hundred ninety three participants completed the survey. When evaluating these generic consents, the majority preferred the more detailed consent (74.5 %), and agreed that it provided enough information to make an informed decision (89.5 %). Those who thought it would be more important to know the severity of the conditions being screened (p?=?.002) and range of symptoms (p?=?.000) were more likely to prefer the more detailed consent. There were no significant associations between scenario preferences and demographic variables. A generic consent was perceived to provide sufficient information for informed decision making regarding multiplex carrier screening with most preferring a more detailed version of the consent. Individual attitudes rather than demographic variables influenced preferences regarding the amount of information that should be included in the generic consent. The findings have implications for how clinicians approach providing tailored informed consent.