An investigation of preceptors' perceptions of behavioral elements of “professionalism” among genetic counseling students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionalism in health care is a loosely defined but increasingly studied concept. In genetic counseling, "professional development" expectations for entry-level genetic counselors are described in the "Practice-Based Competencies for Genetic Counselors," but the teaching and evaluation of "professionalism" among genetic counseling students is relatively unexplored. This study investigated program leaders' and clinical supervisors' perceptions of professionalism demonstrated by genetic counseling graduate students to learn about their associated strengths and lapses. Members of program leadership and clinical supervisors at Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC) accredited genetic counseling graduate programs in the United States and Canada were surveyed regarding their observations of genetic counseling students for the years 2017-2019 regarding four domains of professional behavior: integrity, accountability/conscientiousness, teamwork, and patient care, with the Merriam-Webster definition of each behavior provided for each domain. Participants also provided open-text descriptions. Descriptive results showed that the 263 participants found all facets of these professional behaviors to be essential. Patient care had the highest importance and was the domain with the most strengths observed among genetic counseling students. Lapses in professional behavior were identified for self-awareness, time management, and thoroughness. Free responses noted that suggestions or strategies for education about professional behavior from ACGC may improve the professional behavior of genetic counseling students and in turn, genetic counselors. Participants voiced the importance of consideration of diverse professional and cultural backgrounds in setting the expectations for professional behavior among genetic counseling students and genetic counselors so that "professionalism" in genetic counseling is not defined through a White lens. Further investigation into challenges that genetic counseling students face regarding professional behavior during their graduate training and strategies for education about these behaviors will aid in the growth and improvement of the training of genetic counselors. Given the sensitive nature of this topic, portions of this discussion may be triggering for some readers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".