Cultural, demographic, and other non‐demographic factors associated with cancer genetic counseling patients' appointment accompaniment preferences in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the presence of companion(s) in a genetic counseling session can positively influence session dynamics, research has found that some patients prefer to attend their appointments alone. To date, no studies have examined patient accompaniment preferences across different cultural groups in the context of genetic counseling. This quantitative study aimed to identify factors associated with individual preferences in accompaniment at cancer genetic counseling appointments in a sample (N = 130) of Hispanic/Latine (n = 29) and non-Hispanic/Latine White (n = 101) participants at a large academic medical institution. Variables examined included demographics, horizontal and vertical collectivism, and Hispanic and American acculturation. A link to an online questionnaire was emailed to patients who met four criteria: (1) identified as either Hispanic/Latine or non-Hispanic/Latine White; (2) had attended a cancer genetic counseling appointment at UCLA Health to discuss genetic testing options between October 2020 and December 2022; (3) were at least 18 years of age at the time of their appointment; and (4) indicated they were comfortable reading in Spanish or English; responses were anonymous. Logistic regression analyses identified four significant variables in the model associated with accompaniment preferences: individuals with at least one parent born outside of the US, those who attended their appointment in-person, and those with a higher horizontal collectivism score were less likely to want to attend their cancer genetic counseling appointment alone, while the converse was true among those with a higher American acculturation score. These findings highlight cultural and demographic factors that are associated with patient accompaniment preferences unrelated to ethnicity, indicating genetic counselors should not make assumptions regarding accompaniment preferences based solely on cultural or racial/ethnic background. Genetic counselors should incorporate this understanding when assessing patients' accompaniment preferences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".