Ian M. MacFarlane

Genetic Counselor Perceptions of Genetic Counseling Session Goals: A Validation Study of the Reciprocal-Engagement Model

Although some researchers have attempted to define genetic counseling practice goals, no study has obtained consensus about the goals from a large sample of genetic counselors. The Reciprocal-Engagement Model (REM; McCarthy Veach, Bartels & LeRoy, 2007) articulates 17 goals of genetic counseling practice. The present study investigated whether these goals could be generalized as a model of practice, as determined by a larger group of clinical genetic counselors. Accordingly, 194 genetic counselors were surveyed regarding their opinions about the importance of each goal and their perceptions of how frequently they achieve each goal. Mean importance ratings suggest they viewed every goal as important. Factor analysis of the 17 goals yielded four factors: Understanding and Appreciation, Support and Guidance, Facilitative Decision-Making, and Patient-Centered Education. Patient-Centered Education and Facilitative Decision-Making goals received the highest mean importance ratings. Mean frequency ratings were consistently lower than importance ratings, suggesting genetic counseling goals may be difficult to achieve and/or not applicable in all situations. A number of respondents provided comments about the REM goals that offer insight into factors related to implementing the goals in clinical practice. This study presents preliminary evidence concerning the validity of the goals component of the REM.

What do genetic counselors learn on the job? A qualitative assessment of professional development outcomes

Professional development is an important goal for professionals in human service fields such as counseling, teaching, and nursing. However, there are relatively few published papers on this topic specific to genetic counselors, and no studies systematically examine the outcomes of their professional development. This study was designed to investigate genetic counselors’ perceptions of their post-degree learning and to compare themes in their learning to those of psychotherapist professional development models. Two hundred ninety-three genetic counselors completed the demographics portion of an anonymous online survey, and of these, 185 also responded to at least one of two open-ended items: What is the most important thing you have learned about yourself in your practice as a genetic counselor? and What advice would you give to genetic counseling students just starting their career? An interpretative content-analysis method was used to extract three major themes: Intrapersonal lessons, Interpersonal lessons, and Professional lessons. Training and practice implications and research recommendations are provided.

Prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis: a survey of prenatal genetic counselors' experiences and attitudes.

Studies showing the efficacy and accuracy of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in prenatal diagnosis may position it as a first‐tier prenatal test. This study seeks to characterize the practices and attitudes of North American prenatal genetic counselors regarding CMA.

Defining Our Clinical Practice: The Identification of Genetic Counseling Outcomes Utilizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model

The need for evidence-based medicine, including comparative effectiveness studies and patient-centered outcomes research, has become a major healthcare focus. To date, a comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes, as espoused by genetic counselors, has not been established and thus, identification of outcomes unique to genetic counseling services has become a priority for the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). The purpose of this study was to take a critical first step at identifying a more comprehensive list of genetic counseling outcomes. This paper describes the results of a focus group study using the Reciprocal-Engagement Model (REM) as a framework to characterize patient-centered outcomes of genetic counseling clinical practice. Five focus groups were conducted with 27 peer nominated participants who were clinical genetic counselors, genetic counseling program directors, and/or outcomes researchers in genetic counseling. Members of each focus group were asked to identify genetic counseling outcomes for four to five of the 17 goals of the REM. A theory-driven, thematic analysis of focus group data yielded 194 genetic counseling outcomes across the 17 goals. Participants noted some concerns about how genetic counseling outcomes will be measured and evaluated given varying stakeholders and the long-term nature of genetic concerns. The present results provide a list of outcomes for use in future genetic counseling outcomes research and for empirically-supported clinical interventions.

Why is Everyone So Anxious?: An Exploration of Stress and Anxiety in Genetic Counseling Graduate Students

Stress is an inevitable part of daily life. Studies of graduate student stress exist, but none include genetic counseling students. The present mixed-methods study investigated 225 genetic counseling students’ stress and anxiety levels using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al. 1983), frequency and intensity of stressors associated with their graduate experience, positive and challenging aspects of their experience, and their stress management advice for prospective students. Principal axis factor analysis yielded five conceptual factors underlying the stressors: Professional Uncertainty, Personal Life Events, Interpersonal Demands, Academic Demands, and Isolating Circumstances. Exploratory model fitting using regression yielded four significant predictors accounting for 19% of the variance in state anxiety: (1) trait anxiety, (2) the Interpersonal Demands factor, (3) the Isolating Circumstances factor, and (4) the interaction between the Professional Uncertainty factor and advanced student status. Content analysis of open-ended responses identified several themes. For instance, most students enjoyed what they were learning, interactions with colleagues, and affirmation of their career choice, while certain academic and professional challenges were particularly stressful (e.g., workload, time constraints, clinical rotations). Additional findings, program implications, and research recommendations are provided.

“What Would You Do if You Were Me?” Effects of Counselor Self-Disclosure Versus Non-disclosure in a Hypothetical Genetic Counseling Session

Two prior studies suggest genetic counselors self-disclose primarily because patients ask them to do so (Peters et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2006). However, scant research has investigated effects of counselor disclosure on genetic counseling processes and outcomes. In this study, 151 students (98 undergraduates, 53 graduates) completed one of three surveys describing a hypothetical genetic counseling session in which a patient at risk for FAP was considering whether to pursue testing or surveillance procedures. Dialogue was identical in all surveys, except for a final response to the question: “What would you do if you were me?” The counselor either revealed what she would do (Personal Disclosure), what other patients have done (Professional Disclosure), or deflected the question (No Disclosure). Imagining themselves as the patient, participants wrote a response to the counselor and indicated their perceptions of her. Participants rated the non-disclosing counselor significantly lower in social attractiveness than either disclosing counselor, and less satisfying than the professional disclosing counselor. Analysis of written responses yielded four themes: Made Decision, Sought Information, Expressed Thoughts/Feelings, and No Decision. Practice implications and research recommendations are provided.

Perceptions and Attitudes About Genetic Counseling Among Residents of a Midwestern Rural Area

Relatively few investigations of the public’s perceptions and attitudes about genetic counseling exist, and most are limited to individuals at-risk for a specific disease. In this study 203 individuals from a Midwest rural area completed an anonymous survey assessing their familiarity with genetic counseling; perceptions of genetic counseling purpose, scope, and practice; attitudes toward genetic counseling/counselors; and willingness to use genetic counseling services. Although very few respondents were familiar with genetic counseling, most reported accurate perceptions and positive attitudes; mean ratings, however, showed less endorsement of trust in information provided by genetic counselors and less agreement that genetic counseling aligns with their values. Logistic regression indicated reported willingness to use genetic counseling services increased if respondents: had completed some college; rated their familiarity with genetic counseling as high; agreed with the statements: genetic counseling may be useful to someone with cancer in their family, genetic counseling is in line with my values, and genetic counselors advise women to get abortions when there is a problem; and disagreed with the statements: genetic counseling is only useful to a small group of people with rare diseases, and genetic counselors must receive a lot of special training. Additional findings, practice implications, and research recommendations are presented.

Genetic Counseling Supervisors’ Self-Efficacy for Select Clinical Supervision Competencies

Supervision is a primary instructional vehicle for genetic counseling student clinical training. Approximately two-thirds of genetic counselors report teaching and education roles, which include supervisory roles. Recently, Eubanks Higgins and colleagues published the first comprehensive list of empirically-derived genetic counseling supervisor competencies. Studies have yet to evaluate whether supervisors possess these competencies and whether their competencies differ as a function of experience. This study investigated three research questions: (1) What are genetic counselor supervisors’ perceptions of their capabilities (self-efficacy) for a select group of supervisor competencies?, (2) Are there differences in self-efficacy as a function of their supervision experience or their genetic counseling experience, and 3) What training methods do they use and prefer to develop supervision skills? One-hundred thirty-one genetic counselor supervisors completed an anonymous online survey assessing demographics, self-efficacy (self-perceived capability) for 12 goal setting and 16 feedback competencies (Scale: 0–100), competencies that are personally challenging, and supervision training experiences and preferences (open-ended). A MANOVA revealed significant positive effects of supervision experience but not genetic counseling experience on participants’ self-efficacy. Although mean self-efficacy ratings were high (>83.7), participant comments revealed several challenging competencies (e.g., incorporating student’s report of feedback from previous supervisors into goal setting, and providing feedback about student behavior rather than personal traits). Commonly preferred supervision training methods included consultation with colleagues, peer discussion, and workshops/seminars.

Clinical Supervisor Value Conflicts: Low-Frequency, but High-Impact Events

Although therapist value conflicts are well-documented in the counseling and psychotherapy literature, only a few researchers have attempted to comprehensively identify the scope of supervisor value conflicts. In this study, 17 clinical supervisors participated in focus groups exploring the types of situations that pose value conflicts, how they affect supervisors, and how they address them. Inductive data analysis yielded seven types of situations that create value conflicts: worldview differences; power differentials; managing disputes; clinical versus administrative roles; individual differences; threatened professional standards; and reconciling supervisee and client welfare. Themes are described, and training, practice, and research recommendations are provided.

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.