MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399543410 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1931

Genetic counselors' professional identity in North America: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4399543410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kaye Stenberg, Rachel Mills, Isha Kalia, Lisa Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Society of Genetic Counselors
KeywordsCINAHLInclusion (mineral)ScopusIdentity (music)PsychologyMEDLINEMedicineMedical educationSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Professional identity (PI) comprises attributes, beliefs, values, motives, and experiences by which people define themselves in a professional role and evolves through socialization with others in the workplace. While there have been several studies exploring the expanding roles of genetic counselors, few have specifically addressed PI. This scoping review aimed to describe the contexts in which PI has been discussed or examined in the genetic counseling literature. Articles were searched using PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL with a priori terms including and related to PI. Articles based in the United States or Canada and of all study designs, commentaries, and speeches were included. Date of publication was not restricted. Using social identity theory (SIT) to formulate a definition of PI, multiple reviewers applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to all titles, abstracts, and full-text articles with conflicts addressed through consensus among all reviewers. A total of 5523 titles and/or abstracts were screened, and 467 full-text articles were evaluated and categorized as (1) focusing on PI specifically, (2) containing elements of PI although focused on another topic, or (3) not related to PI. Eighty-seven (87) articles were reviewed during the extraction phase. Ultimately, 41 articles were deemed to meet the agreed upon characteristics of PI. While empirical studies of PI among genetic counselors were limited, PI is being addressed in research focused on related areas, including professional development and diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as in personal accounts, addresses, and commentaries. Sentiments regarding PI voiced by genetic counselors align with those reported among other health professionals. Given the lack of diversity in the field and rapidly expanding opportunities for genetic counselors, there is risk of some members of the profession feeling excluded, which in turn could negatively impact the collective identity of the profession and translate into impacts on patient care. Additional research regarding the PI of genetic counselors is needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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