Perceived social support: A study of genetic counseling graduate students in the United States (<scp>US</scp>) and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social support is described as having positive psychological and physical outcomes and offers some protective benefits against mental illness. However, research has not addressed social support for genetic counseling graduate students, although this population is prone to elevated levels of stress in addition to field-specific phenomena like compassion fatigue and burnout. Therefore, an online survey was distributed to genetic counseling students in accredited programs in the United States and Canada to synthesize information about (1) demographic information, (2) self-identified sources of support, and (3) the availability of a strong support network. In total, 238 responses were included in the analysis, yielding a mean social support score of 3.84 on a 5-point scale, where higher scores indicate increased social support. The identification of friends or classmates as forms of social support significantly increased social support scores (p < 0.001; p = 0.006, respectively). There was also a positive correlation between increased social support scores and the number of social support outlets (p = 0.01). Subgroup analysis focused on potential differences in social support for racially/ethnically underrepresented participants (comprising less than 22% of respondents), revealing that this population identified friends as a form of social support significantly less often than their White counterparts; and mean social support scores were also significantly lower. Our study underscores the importance of classmates as a source of social support for genetic counseling graduate students while uncovering discrepancies that exist in social support sources between White and underrepresented students. Ultimately, stakeholders in genetic counseling student success should foster a community and culture of support within a training program (whether traditionally in-person or online) to encourage success among all students.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".