Training to Provide Psychiatric Genetic Counseling: How Does It Impact Recent Graduates’ and Current Students’ Readiness to Provide Genetic Counseling for Individuals with Psychiatric Illness and Attitudes towards this Population?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mental illness is extremely common and genetic counselors frequently see patients with mental illness. Genetic counselors report discomfort in providing psychiatric genetic counseling (GC), suggesting the need to look critically at training for psychiatric GC. This study aimed to investigate psychiatric GC training and its impact on perceived preparedness to provide psychiatric GC (preparedness). Current students and recent graduates were invited to complete an anonymous survey evaluating psychiatric GC training and outcomes. Bivariate correlations ( p <.10) identified variables for inclusion in a logistic regression model to predict preparedness. Data were checked for assumptions underlying logistic regression. The logistic regression model for the 286 respondents [χ 2 (8)=84.87, p <.001] explained between 37.1% (Cox & Snell R 2 =.371) and 49.7% (Nagelkerke R 2 =.497) of the variance in preparedness scores. More frequent psychiatric GC instruction (OR=5.13), more active methods for practicing risk assessment (OR=4.43), and education on providing resources for mental illness (OR=4.99) made uniquely significant contributions to the model ( p <.001). Responses to open‐ended questions revealed interest in further psychiatric GC training, particularly enabling “hands on” experience. This exploratory study suggests that enriching GC training through more frequent psychiatric GC instruction and more active opportunities to practice psychiatric GC skills will support students in feeling more prepared to provide psychiatric GC after graduation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".