Factors associated with pediatric genetic counselors' practices related to bullying screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bullying is reported in around 20% of children according to the US Department of Education and has been reported in the histories of individuals with genetic disorders. To our knowledge, there has never been a study surveying whether genetic counselors screen their pediatric patients for bullying. This is despite guidelines that pediatric healthcare providers should screen for bullying. The purpose of this study was to assess North American genetic counselors who see pediatric patients and enquire about their practices, attitudes, self-confidence, knowledge, and potential training needs in relation to bullying screening. In an anonymous online survey, 139 genetic counselors from the United States and Canada completed a modified version of the previously validated Healthcare Providers Practices, Attitudes, Self-Confidence, and Knowledge (HCP-PACK) instrument. Among our participant population, 85% reported they did not screen for bullying. This is despite no statistically significant difference in the amount of reported time spent on either initial or follow-up appointments between those who did or did not screen. Those who screened for bullying among their pediatric patients were more likely to view bullying as a healthcare problem (as measured on the attitude subscale) (t[135] = -2.07, p = 0.04) and had greater confidence in their ability to know how to assess for bullying (as measured on the self-confidence subscale) (t[135] = -2.90, p = 0.004) compared with participants who did not screen for bullying. Responses from genetic counselors who screened their patients for bullying demonstrated how screening for bullying can be aligned with the American Board of Genetic Counseling practice-based competencies. Even though the majority of participants did not view screening for bullying as a genetic counselor's role, 82.5% agreed that bullying was a healthcare problem and 63.6% thought genetic counselors should have additional educational opportunities to learn about bullying. Evidence-based guidance is needed to help genetic counselors interested in including screening for bullying in their practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".