How do Physicians Decide to Refer Their Patients for Psychiatric Genetic Counseling? A Qualitative Study of Physicians’ Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychiatric genetic counseling (PGC) is an emerging specialty discipline within the genetic counseling profession. A specialist PGC service was founded in 2012 in Vancouver, Canada, and though patient benefits have been demonstrated, many physicians do not regularly refer patients to the service despite awareness of its availability. We conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured telephone interviews with Vancouver-based physicians who were aware of the PGC service to explore this phenomenon. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analysed for emergent themes. Consistent with a grounded theory approach, constant comparison was employed throughout data collection and analysis. Analyses of interviews conducted with 12 physicians revealed that referral practices were informed by perceptions about the purpose of PGC and interpretation of patient cues. Physicians perceived PGC as an information-focused intervention, and considered referral when patients explicitly expressed desire for information about recurrence risk or etiology that they felt unable to adequately address themselves. Even when physicians identified psychotherapeutic benefits of PGC, patient needs of this nature were not perceived as cues prompting referral to PGC. These data suggest that further work is necessary to position PGC in physicians' minds as a service that could potentially benefit most individuals with psychiatric disorders and their families, and that it encompasses more than information provision. It is important to increase physicians' awareness of the complementary role that genetic counselors can play to that of the physician in providing psychotherapeutically oriented counselling about illness etiology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".