MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182689350 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1444

Genesurance counseling: Current training practices of genetic counseling graduate programs in the United States

2021· article· en· W3182689350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chelsea Wagner, Quinn Stein, Claire N. Singletary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationGenetic counselingCurriculumModalitiesMedical educationMedicineDescriptive statisticsFamily medicineGraduate medical educationModality (human–computer interaction)PsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, it has become apparent that patients expect genetic counselors to be able to address questions about insurance coverage for genetic testing and perform 'genesurance' tasks in and out of genetic counseling sessions. Anecdotally, many genetic counseling graduate programs have begun to incorporate genesurance training in some capacity. However, the amount, modality, and potential barriers to this training had not been previously studied; therefore, this study aimed to elucidate current graduate program practice regarding genesurance. Program Directors of Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) accredited programs who had students enrolled as of July 2019 (n = 50) were recruited through the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) listserv and invited to complete an anonymous electronic survey via Qualtrics. Program Directors (PDs) from 25 ACGC accredited programs located in the United States completed the survey and were included in the analysis, responses from two ACGC Canadian programs were excluded due to small sample size and differences in healthcare systems. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and open-ended responses were coded utilizing latent qualitative content analysis. The majority of respondents from the United States, 96.0% (24/25), report incorporating genesurance training into their curriculum utilizing a variety of training modalities including classroom, clinical, and online experiences. Most (81.0%) felt their trainees were adequately or very prepared to discuss genesurance issues. Despite varied methods of teaching modalities, PDs identified barriers to providing this training, including time constraints within the curriculum, lack of interest in the subject, as well as acknowledging the constantly changing landscape of billing and insurance. Despite these barriers, a baseline understanding of the impact of insurance on offering genetic testing and insight into how insurance impacts clinical practice may be beneficial to genetic counseling trainees, as it reflects the current genetic counselor's workflow and practice patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207