Identifying potential <scp>LGBTQIA</scp><sup>+</sup> competencies for genetic counseling student training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The LGBTQIA + community faces considerable health disparities. Developing and integrating LGBTQIA + competencies into healthcare provider training programs is one way to promote inclusive high‐quality care to potentially improve this community's health. Currently, there are no established LGBTQIA + ‐specific competencies for genetic counseling graduate programs (GCPs), so training across GCPs likely varies. This qualitative focus group‐based study aimed to explore current topics related to genetic counseling (GC) for LGBTQIA + patients covered in North American GCPs, their learning objectives, and LGBTQIA + ‐specific competencies that GC students (GCSs) should achieve by graduation. Eligible participants were program leaders at ACGC‐accredited GCPs and/or faculty who taught LGBTQIA + ‐related content in at least one GCP over the last 5 years. A semistructured interview guide was used to conduct virtual focus groups that were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and an inductive iterative approach that generated themes regarding what content is taught and what knowledge, attitudes, and skills GCSs should demonstrate as a result. Thirteen people participated, including nine LGBTQIA + people. They represented 12 GCPs (22% of current GCPs) across the United States and Canada. Focus groups ran 73–90 min. Transcript analysis identified six themes, framed as learning objectives (LOs), and 24 subobjectives. These included recognizing the breadth of the LGBTQIA + community and their lived experience with the healthcare system, demonstrating respect for and responding to patient identities to provide inclusive GC, employing strategies to mitigate social aspects that influence health care, and assessing personal biases and the impact of socialization. Participants used several teaching methods including didactic lectures, simulation, written activities, reflections, and fieldwork experiences. The six identified LOs may be a starting point for GCPs looking to develop or refine their LGBTQIA + curricula. Competency‐based education may enhance GCSs' abilities to provide inclusive GC to the LGBTQIA + community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".