Genetic counselors’ attitudes toward and practice related to psychiatric genetic counseling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the high demand for psychiatric genetic counseling among people with psychiatric conditions (>90%), surveys show that genetic counselors rarely receive primary referrals for psychiatric cases. The purpose of this study was to further investigate potential barriers to the provision of psychiatric genetic counseling services, focusing specifically on the prevalence and impact of psychiatric stigmatization among genetic counselors. Board-certified, practicing genetic counselors were invited to participate in an anonymous survey via the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Survey measures included a validated psychiatric stigmatization scale (OMS-HC) and questions assaying genetic counselors' experiences with and opinions of psychiatric genetic counseling. Associations between psychiatric stigmatization and attitudes toward and practice related to psychiatric genetic counseling were computed using Pearson's correlation. The majority of respondents believed that psychiatric genetic counseling is of value to families (94%) and that it is indicated if there is a relevant personal or family history (90.3%), but only 44.6% reported providing this service. On average, respondents scored neutrally on psychiatric stigma scales; however, higher stigma levels were associated with less frequent psychiatric discussions (p = .05), less counselor comfort and perceived qualification (p = .003) and perceptions of having insufficient psychiatric genetic data (p < .02), resources (p < .02) and time (p < .03). This study suggests that the limits of psychiatric genetics research and unavailability of genetic testing lead many genetic counselors to doubt the utility of psychiatric genetic counseling. Should this mindset persist, without the intervention of psychiatric education and training, the field of genetic counseling risks continuing to inadequately serve a historically underserved population.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".