Positive and negative professionalism experiences of genetic counseling students in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many aspects of genetic counseling training programs have been examined over the years. However, no study has explored professional or unprofessional behaviors genetic counseling graduate students experience during their training, and how these behaviors influence satisfaction with their training. This exploratory study examined students' experiences with program leaders, instructors, supervisors, and other trainees. Specific experiences included actions of favoritism, bias, negativity, abuse of power, and examples of positive role modeling. A survey was sent to all members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and program directors in order to reach graduates of Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC)-accredited programs from 2015-2019 who were eligible to participate. Responses to questions relating to demographics, satisfaction with graduate education, behaviors experienced or seen during graduate school, and reporting of inappropriate behaviors were collected and analyzed. Results demonstrated that 95% of the genetic counseling graduates were highly satisfied with their graduate education and those who experienced inappropriate behaviors during their training were somewhat less satisfied (p = .04). Individuals who felt more prepared by their graduate education were more satisfied with their graduate education (p < .01). Being publicly embarrassed or humiliated, being made to feel like a burden in clinic, or being subjected to negative or offensive behavior based on their personal beliefs or personal characteristics (excluding areas of gender, race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation) were all negatively associated with satisfaction (all p < .04). We conclude that this survey could serve as a "Genetic Counseling Training Experiences Assessment" which could be incorporated into annual evaluations required by the ACGC. Implementation of this assessment would enhance the current evaluations of genetic counseling training programs and provide important information regarding student experiences during their training.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".