Commonalities and contrasts: North American program directors' perspectives on genetic counseling education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently a gap in the literature regarding education by and for genetic counseling (GC) students and genetic counselors. Since little is written about current strategies used in GC graduate programs, we conducted a qualitative semi-structured interview study of North American GC program directors to learn about their educational goals and practices. We recruited 25 program directors from the United States and Canada through the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors for interviews using a video conferencing platform. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, followed by content analysis to analyze education frameworks; processes of program planning and development; approaches and strategies for teaching and assessing GC core knowledge and skills; and systemic factors that influence GC education. We emphasized areas that are challenging to teach, particularly ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI); disability issues; genomics; counseling skills; diversity, equity, inclusion, justice (DEIJ) issues; professional identity; research skills; and teaching skills. We found commonalities supported by standards and practice-based competencies and also a rich diversity of program cultures, approaches, and techniques for teaching and assessing genetic counseling skills. There was a consistent theme of integration across the program for all areas examined. A multilayered, comprehensive approach to DEIJ issues was advocated. Planned change was a logical outcome of program assessment, while unplanned change called for flexibility and creativity. The description of GC educational practices provides documentation of current approaches and strategies, guidance for new GC programs, and inspiration for continued evolution of existing GC graduate programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".