Reciprocal Relationships: the Genetic Counselor‐Patient Relationship Following a Life‐Limiting Prenatal Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing the tenet, "Relationship is integral to the genetic counseling process" from the Reciprocal Engagement Model (REM) of genetic counseling practice, this study sought to explore the relationship between the genetic counselor and patient following a "life-limiting" prenatal diagnosis that resulted in a major loss (termination, stillbirth/miscarriage, or neonatal death). The specific aims of this study were to: 1) Understand and describe aspects of the genetic counselor-patient relationship in the context of the life-limiting prenatal diagnosis, and identify characteristics and actions of the 2) genetic counselor and 3) patient that influence the relationship. Genetic counselor (GC) participants were recruited via a web-based survey distributed by NSGC and the NSGC Prenatal SIG. Eligible GCs maintained a relationship with a patient beyond the prenatal diagnosis and had a willing patient participant. Individual 60-min audio-recorded telephone interviews were conducted with eight GC and 8 respective patients (n = 16) using parallel interview guides (n = 16). Transcriptions underwent thematic content analysis for systematic coding and identification of emergent themes. The GC-patient relationship was characterized by the evolution of communication and promoted by the supportive needs of the patient, the nature of the diagnosis, and characteristics and supportive actions of the participants. This exploratory study highlights the unique service of support offered by genetic counselors in the context of a life-limiting prenatal diagnosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".