Pharmacogenomic education among genetic counseling training programs in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing number of genetic counselors participating directly in clinical pharmacogenomic post-test counseling prompted our evaluation of pharmacogenomic education across genetic counseling training programs in North America. Thirty-one program leadership participants from both the United States (U.S.) and Canada responded to a survey assessing pharmacogenomics education and the role of genetic counselors. Eighty-five percent of respondents agreed pharmacogenomics is currently within the scope of genetic counseling practice, and 96.3% indicated their training programs currently provide education on pharmacogenomics, with the majority reporting < 7 hr of education. Lectures on pharmacogenomics were the most common method for didactics; however, some programs also included practical modalities (e.g., case studies, clinical rotations) and online resources. Barriers to expanding pharmacogenomic education included the constrained timeline of training, and lack of resources and local expertise. Moreover, participants suggested that genetic counselors ideally should be able to order pharmacogenomic tests and counsel patients on pharmacogenomics, including result interpretation, as they believe pharmacogenomics does fall within the scope of practice of genetic counseling. Our novel results also confirm that training program leadership support a pharmacogenomic service delivery model that includes a combined effort between genetic counselors and pharmacists to utilize their synergistic expertise. However, this model likely still necessitates expanding pharmacogenomic didactics in genetic counseling training programs through more practical training and/or by leveraging online pharmacogenomic courses dedicated to supporting clinical implementation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".