Psychological state at the time of psychiatric genetic counseling impacts patient empowerment: A pre–post analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Psychiatric genetic counseling (GC) has been associated with patient‐reported increases in empowerment (perceived control, emotional regulation, and hope). We sought to evaluate the extent to which patients' psychological state at the time of GC is related to changes in empowerment. Participants with a history of major depressive disorder and/or bipolar disorder that had been refractory to treatment underwent psychiatric GC remotely from 2022 to 2023. GC was performed by four genetic counselors and included discussion of perceived causes of illness, multifactorial inheritance, and protective factors. Empowerment, depression, and anxiety were measured immediately prior to GC via online survey by the GCOS‐16, PHQ‐9, and GAD‐7, respectively. Empowerment was re‐assessed 2 weeks later. In total, 66/161 (41.0%) invited individuals completed both the baseline and follow‐up surveys. Participants completing both surveys were 54.6% female, 84.8% white, and ranged in age from 22 to 78 years (mean = 54.8 years). Overall, a significant change in mean empowerment was not observed ( p = 0.38); however, there were moderating effects by baseline psychological state. A multiple linear regression model incorporating PHQ‐9, GAD‐7 and baseline GCOS‐16 score predicted change in empowerment with a large effect ( F = 5.49, R 2 = 0.21, p < 0.01). A higher score on the PHQ‐9 was associated with decreases in empowerment from pre to post GC. Higher scores on the GAD‐7 and lower baseline GCOS‐16 scores were associated with increases in empowerment. Further, two‐way ANOVA was conducted to assess change in empowerment between subgroups based on the level of anxiety and depression. Those with low depression and high anxiety reported significant increases in empowerment ( F = 6.64, p = 0.01). These findings suggest that psychiatric GC may be especially helpful to individuals experiencing anxiety and low baseline empowerment. Alternative approaches may be needed to best meet the needs of those experiencing significant depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".