National Society Of Genetic Counselors Research Articles

Multicancer hereditary syndrome testing: Genetic counselors’ perspectives.

106 Background: The accessibility of cancer hereditary syndrome testing has increased, and the cost has declined significantly in the past few years. We conducted a national, quantitative survey of genetic counselors (GCs) to assess their perspectives on what influences hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions and practices, with a focus on cost. This survey was funded by NIH, conducted by UCSF TRANSPERS, and supported by the National Society of Genetic Counselors(NSGC). Methods: The survey was developed through literature review, expert interviews, and a pilot. Sent to the NSGC Cancer Special Interest Group via email. Chi-square tests were used to examine variability. Results: The survey response rate was 56% (202/363). Multiple hereditary cancer syndrome tests are discussed often/always by 86% of genetic counselors (GCs).The existence of an institutional protocol on multiple hereditary cancer syndrome testing was reported by 35.4% of GCs. When asked about GC counseling encounters, GCs report insurance rarely/never pays for: 25.2% pre-test in-person,39.7% for pre-test tele-genetics, 35.4% post-test in-person, and 52.9% post-test tele-genetics. GCs rated clinical factors higher than cost as influencing decision for multiple hereditary syndrome cancer testing (table); the total cost of the test was least important. These patterns were similar across the GCs institution types and years in practice. Conclusions: We found consistent use of multiple hereditary cancer syndrome tests, with less focus on cost, out-of-pocket, and insurance coverage and more of a focus on clinical indicators. GCs reported challenges with reimbursement for GC counseling encounters. The shift toward more genetic counseling encounters via tele-genetics necessitates evaluation of insurance reimbursement.[Table: see text]

Analysis of the reported use of practice-based competencies by North American genetic counselors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Genetic counseling services changed due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Many genetic counselors (GCs) moved from in‐person to telehealth services. Others were redeployed by choice or necessity, using their expertise to provide COVID‐19 care and education. For some, their employment status changed due to budgetary constraints or decreasing referrals. This study surveyed North American GCs to assess the relative use of genetic counseling Practice‐Based Competencies (PBCs) as a proxy for the skills used during the first wave of the pandemic, whether GCs were in their current role or in new or adjusted roles. A secondary aim was to determine whether GCs believe their training should be refocused in view of the workforce shifts posed by the pandemic. The survey comprised closed‐ and open‐ended questions and was completed in full by 97 respondents. The study population was representative of the general genetic counseling workforce in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, age, and practice area when compared to the National Society of Genetic Counselors 2020 Professional Status Survey. Most participants (97.9%) indicated that the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in a change to their work, and 89.7% used at least one PBC at a different frequency than before the pandemic. The most significant change was the adaptation of genetic counseling skills for varied service delivery models: 83.5% of respondents indicated that their roles and responsibilities moved to a remote setting and/or utilized telehealth. The majority of participants felt competent using the PBCs during the pandemic. Major themes that emerged from the qualitative data were as follows: (a) adaptation of service delivery, (b) translation of genetic counseling skills, and (c) provision of psychosocial support. This study highlights practice changes for GCs due to the COVID‐19 pandemic as well as the increased use of, and need for focused training in, varied service delivery models.

Genetic counseling for congenital heart disease - Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is an indication which spans multiple specialties across various genetic counseling practices. This practice resource aims to provide guidance on key considerations when approaching counseling for this particular indication while recognizing the rapidly changing landscape of knowledge within this domain. This resource was developed with consensus from a diverse group of certified genetic counselors utilizing literature relevant for CHD genetic counseling practice and is aimed at supporting genetic counselors who encounter this indication in their practice both pre- and postnatally.

Genetic counseling clinical documentation: Practice Resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Clinical documentation is an important extension of a genetic counseling encounter. The traditional types of clinical documentation include the clinical visit note (including follow-up visit note), letter to the referring physician, letter to the patient, and result summary to the patient and referring physician. Increasing patient volumes, new genetic counseling service delivery models, transition to electronic medical records (EMR), new specialty clinics in genetics, and advances in genetic testing technologies challenge the practice of writing multiple types of clinical documents. This practice resource (PR) seeks to provide best practices for U.S.-based genetic counselors to write efficient and comprehensive clinical documentation using a hybrid clinical document designed to facilitate communication between individual providers, providers, and patients/families, and providers and payers. The content of the hybrid clinical documentation will vary by genetic specialty but may include a summary of genetic services evaluation, genetic testing options and eligibility information, genetic test results, potential risks for genetic conditions, implications for family members, and medical management recommendations. An outline of a general hybrid document along with examples of hybrid clinic notes for three types of genetic counseling specialties is included in this document.

Results of the Genetic Counselor SARS-CoV-2 Impact Survey from the National Society of Genetic Counselors: Progress and penalty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Genetic Counselor SARS‐CoV‐2 Impact Survey (GCSIS) describes the impact of the pandemic on genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. With this information, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) can better: (1) support advocacy and access efforts for genetic counseling services at both federal‐ and state‐level; (2) promote effective billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling services provided via telemedicine; and (3) make decisions about how to best support genetic counselors.The survey was hosted on a novel data collection and analysis platform from LunaDNA and was open to all genetic counselors (n = 5,531 based on professional society membership). Survey response rate was approximately 3.8% (n = 212/5,531), with a demographic distribution broadly representative of the North American genetic counseling field. Genetic counselors remained largely employed, providing genetic counseling services throughout the pandemic, although almost one in five respondents (17%, n = 35/211) reported experiencing some degree of pandemic‐related financial hardship. Nearly all respondents (90%, n = 104/115) transitioned, at least in part, to remote work settings, with about half (47%. n = 88/189) reporting restrictions in the care they were able to provide. These shifts came at a cost: existing gaps in Medicare status for genetic counselors and attendant reimbursement concerns led to uncertainty about whether genetic counselors' work will be reimbursed. Outside of work, caregiving responsibilities increased for 34% (n = 74/212) of respondents.The results of the GCSIS amplify the importance of federal‐ and state‐level advocacy efforts for genetic counselors and their employers. They also highlight the impact of broader cultural intransigence on our majority‐female profession. During the pandemic, genetic counselors continued to provide care, but without consistent financial support or expectation of reimbursement. The ability to attract and retain talented professionals to the genetic counseling field will hinge on the success of continued advocacy efforts.

Application of the ACMG/NSGC genetic referral guidelines for hereditary renal cell carcinoma at the University of Miami, from 2014 to 2017.

Identifying hereditary syndromes among patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is essential for surveillance of affected individuals and their at-risk family members and for treatment optimization. We conducted a chart review to determine the percentage of patients with RCC who were seen at the University of Miami Health System (UHealth), and met the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) genetic referral criteria at the University of Miami. Subsequently, we determined the percentage of those who went on to receive genetic evaluation. Patients selected by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9/10 codes corresponding to kidney cancer who were at least 18 years of age at the time of diagnosis were included in the study. We included a total of 1443 patients in the final analysis, and after exclusion of charts with incorrect ICD codes, insufficient clinical data, unknown pathology, and patients who were not seen. We used chi-square analysis, ANOVA, and t-test. Of 1443 charts reviewed, 65.7% were male and 34.3% were female. 47.7% self-identified as White, 39.2% as Hispanic, 9.1% as Black, and 4.0% as "other." The mean age of RCC diagnosis was 60.0 ± 12.4 years old. In total, 47.0% of patients met ACMG/NSGC referral criteria for genetic evaluation. Of those, only 4.2% had documented genetic assessment. This study showed a low adherence to ACMG/NSGC genetic referral guidelines at our institution and a need for increasing patients' and practitioners' awareness about the significance of genetic assessment for RCC patients and their family members.

Prenatal genetic counselors' perceptions of the impact of abortion legislation on counseling and access in the United States.

Genetic counselors have an important role in offering and appropriate coordinating abortion services for patients identified with a fetal abnormality. Few studies have been conducted to determine the effects of legislation on genetic counselors and patients. This study aimed to further our understanding of genetic counselors' perception of the impact of abortion regulations on their practice, the perceived financial and emotional impact on their patients and their ability to access abortion. A 22-question survey was developed based on themes identified by a qualitative study (Koenig et al., 2019, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 28, 790-801), and distributed to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors; data from 113 respondents are analyzed. For analysis, participants were categorized into three groups based on the restrictiveness of their state's abortion legislation (supportive, middle ground, hostile) using the Guttmacher Institute's designation based on the amount of restrictive abortion legislation in their state. Participants reported that legislative gestational age restrictions significantly impact their counseling and coordinating of abortion services. Participants reported emotional and financial burdens that impact their patients seeking abortion; however, those in hostile states were significantly more likely to report a perceived financial or emotional impact on their patients. Participants in hostile states were more likely than those in supportive states to report that many of the addressed legislative and institutional regulations impact patients' ability to access abortion. Abortion regulations limiting the decision-making time frame for patients with a fetal abnormality have a significant impact on the practice of prenatal genetic counseling. Further restrictions may change how genetic counselors choose to counsel their patients about the option of abortion, but also may limit the availability of choices particularly for patients in rural areas, in hostile states, and those without the financial resources to travel or pursue termination at later gestational ages.

Identification of women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in a sample of 1000 Slovenian women: a comparison of guidelines

BackgroundAn important number of breast and ovarian cancer cases is due to a strong genetic predisposition. The main tool for identifying individuals at risk is recognizing a suggestive family history of cancer. We present a prospective study on applying three selected clinical guidelines to a cohort of 1000 Slovenian women to determine the prevalence of at-risk women according to each of the guidelines and analyze the differences amongst the guidelines.MethodsPersonal and family history of cancer was collected for 1000 Slovenian women. Guidelines by three organizations: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American College of Medical Genetics in cooperation with National Society of Genetic Counselors (ACMG/NSGC), and Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) were applied to the cohort. The number of women identified, the characteristics of the high-risk population, and the agreement between the guidelines were explored.ResultsNCCN guidelines identify 13.2% of women, ACMG/NSGC guidelines identify 7.1% of women, and SGO guidelines identify 7.0% of women from the Slovenian population, while 6.2% of women are identified by all three guidelines as having high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.ConclusionsWe identified 13.7% of women from the Slovenian population as being at an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer based on their personal and family history of cancer using all of the guidelines. There are important differences between the guidelines. NCCN guidelines are the most inclusive, identifying nearly twice the amount of women as high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer as compared to the AGMG/NSCG and SGO guidelines in the Slovenian population.

Utilization of breast cancer risk prediction models by cancer genetic counselors in clinical practice predominantly in the United States.

Risk assessment in cancer genetic counseling is essential in identifying individuals at high risk for developing breast cancer to recommend appropriate screening and management options. Historically, many breast cancer risk prediction models were developed to calculate an individual's risk to develop breast cancer or to carry a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. However, how or when genetic counselors use these models in clinical settings is currently unknown. We explored genetic counselors' breast cancer risk model usage patterns including frequency of use, reasons for using or not using models, and change in usage since the adoption of multi-gene panel testing. An online survey was developed and sent to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors; board-certified genetic counselors whose practice included cancer genetic counseling were eligible to participate in the study. The response rate was estimated at 23% (243/1,058), and respondents were predominantly working in the United States. The results showed that 93% of all respondents use at least one breast cancer risk prediction model in their clinical practice. Among the six risk models selected for the study, the Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS) model was used most frequently (95%), and the BOADICEA model was used least (40%). Determining increased or decreased surveillance and breast MRI eligibility were the two most common reasons for most model usage, while time consumption and difficulty in navigation were the two most common reasons for not using models. This study provides insight into perceived benefits and limitations of risk models in clinical use in the United States, which may be useful information for software developers, genetic counseling program curriculum developers, and currently practicing cancer genetic counselors.

Multicancer hereditary syndrome testing: Genetic counselors’ perspectives.

10594 Background: The accessibility of cancer hereditary syndrome testing has increased, and the cost has declined significantly in the past few years. We conducted a national, quantitative survey of genetic counselors (GCs) to assess their perspectives on what influences hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions and practices, with a focus on cost. This survey was funded by NIH, conducted by UCSF TRANSPERS, and supported by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC). Methods: The survey was developed through literature review, expert interviews, and a pilot. Sent to the NSGC Cancer Special Interest Group via email. Chi-square tests were used to examine variability. Results: The survey response rate was 56% (202/363). Multiple hereditary cancer syndrome tests are discussed often/always by 86% of genetic counselors (GCs). The existence of an institutional protocol on multiple hereditary cancer syndrome testing was reported by 35.4% of GCs. When asked about GC counseling encounters, GCs report insurance rarely/never pays for: 25.2% pre-test in-person, 39.7% for pre-test tele-genetics, 35.4% post-test in-person, and 52.9% post-test tele-genetics. GCs rated clinical factors higher than cost as influencing decision for multiple hereditary syndrome cancer testing (table); the total cost of the test was least important. These patterns were similar across the GCs institution types and years in practice. Conclusions: We found consistent use of multiple hereditary cancer syndrome tests, with less focus on cost, out-of-pocket, and insurance coverage and more of a focus on clinical indicators. GCs reported challenges with reimbursement for GC counseling encounters. The shift toward more genetic counseling encounters via tele-genetics necessitates evaluation of insurance reimbursement.[Table: see text]

Examining career shadowing in genetic counseling: Perspectives of shadowees, program directors, and genetic counselors.

Career shadowing can be a valuable opportunity for individuals to experience the daily activities of a working professional. However, there is no published research regarding the impact of shadowing for individuals hoping to pursue a career as a genetic counselor (GC) (termed 'shadowees'). Additionally, little is known about the impact of shadowing on practicing GCs, nor the value of shadowing in the application and admission process for genetic counseling graduate programs. For this study, three independent surveys were developed and sent to three stakeholder groups: shadowees in the Minnesota Genetic Counseling Experience Program, program directors within the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors, and members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on responses. The survey of shadowees (n=55) found that the majority believed that shadowing had either a 'very' or 'somewhat positive' impact on their decision to become a GC and on their application to a genetic counseling graduate program (81.8% and 91.3%, respectively). Of the participating program director respondents (n=43), the majority indicated that having shadowing experience was either 'moderately' or 'extremely important' in offering an interview or for acceptance into a graduate program (63% and 56%, respectively). While programs differ in evaluation of shadowing experiences, most program directors indicated that an applicant's ability to speak to their shadowing experience was the most important factor in admissions consideration (71%). Among the GCs surveyed (n=325), 69.2% have hosted shadowees; of these, 82.7% indicated that hosting a shadowee decreases their efficiency at work. Despite this drawback, the majority of respondents expressed a willingness and motivation to host shadowees to help the shadowee (64.8%) and to promote the genetic counseling profession (32.6%). These findings suggest the need for additional research and the development of resources for GCs to increase access of career shadowing.

The role of the genetic testing industry in patient education of hereditary cancer: An observational study assessing the quality of patient education videos

ObjectivesGenetic testing (GT) companies have developed patient education videos to supplement or replace pre-test genetic counseling (GC) by certified genetic counselors (CGC). The aim of this study was to assess the quality of these videos compared to the standard of care (SOC). MethodsVideos from four major GT companies were selected from an internet search identifying pre-test patient education videos. A scoring rubric with 22 questions and 36 total points was devised to assess quality metrics, as described by the National Cancer Institute and National Society of Genetic Counselors. Twenty-two individuals with varying genetics expertise (3 gynecologic oncologists, 3 academic generalists, 4 CGC, a genetics community health worker, 3 cancer care navigators, and 8 medical students) scored each video. Scorers were blinded to others' assessments. ResultsInvitae had the highest median score (26/36), followed by Myriad (22/36), Ambry (17.5/36), and Color (15/36). All videos scored highly in explaining DNA basics, cancer development, and hereditary cancer predisposition. All addressed benefits of GT but failed to address potential disadvantages. All scored poorly in explaining medical terms and different GT options. There was variability in addressing patient concerns including cost, privacy, and procedure. ConclusionsThere is significant variation in the content of pre-test patient education videos between GT companies. None of the videos met the SOC for pre-test GC, and none addressed disadvantages of GT, possibly due to a conflict of interest. With improvement in content, accessibility, and use of interactive platforms, these videos may serve as an adjunct to in-person pre-test GC.

Genetic counselors' experiences with transgender individuals in prenatal and preconception settings.

Many transgender individuals want to have children and are pursuing reproductive care. Limited research has described the experiences of transgender individuals during pregnancy, and no known studies have examined reproductive genetic counseling sessions with this patient population. To understand what topics and considerations are explored within this sector of reproductive care, prenatal and preconception genetic counselors that have seen a transgender patient and/or transgender partner of a patient were recruited through an email blast to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Nine genetic counselors completed phone interviews. Content analysis was used to identify, quantify, and examine the concepts within the transcripts. Six major themes emerged: (1) Trans individuals were referred for common genetic counseling indications, (2) genetic counselors were driven to think of more inclusive language, (3) genetic counselors considered ways to make written materials more inclusive, (4) trans individuals expressed discomforts in the prenatal/preconception setting, (5) genetic counselors observed challenges with the care team, and (6) genetic counselors felt underprepared. This study identifies areas within reproductive spaces of genetic counseling that could be more inclusive, particularly relating to commonly used gendered language and written materials, and provides training recommendations for genetic counselors. Additionally, we outline the reported areas of discrimination for these patients and partners, and discuss ways that genetic counselors can be advocates for respectful and equitable care within their clinics.

Genetic counselor approaches to BRCA1/2 direct-to-consumer genetic testing results.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends clinical-grade genetic testing to confirm commercial results from direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) companies and third-party interpretation (TPI) services; however, the type of confirmatory testing that genetic counselors (GCs) recommend remains uncharacterized. Therefore, we aimed to describe GCs testing strategies for patients who have already obtained DTC-GT results (23andMe) or TPI data (Promethease) that reported a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. We invited GCs specializing in clinical cancer genetics to complete an online survey distributed to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. The survey, completed by 80 respondents, contained case scenarios featuring probands with variable personal and family histories of cancer. Our results show that the majority of participating GCs have counseled patients for their health-related commercial test results; 94% have encountered patient DTC-GT reports (3 per year), and 69% have encountered patient TPI data (2 per year). Most participating GCs would recommend confirmatory clinical-grade testing for probands with a positive 23andMe BRCA1/2 result (77/80, 96%). However, there was strong variability between the type of recommended testing. Approximately 20% recommended single-site analysis, 11%-14% recommended the three Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1/2 founder mutations, 4% recommended BRCA1/2 testing, and 61%-64% recommended multi-gene panel testing. The most commonly recommended panels were split between a breast and gynecological cancer-focused panel and a broad pan-cancer panel. The majority of participants (98%-100%) would also recommend confirmatory testing for patients with positive TPI data for BRCA1/2. Similarly, results were mixed between those who recommended targeted, single-site analysis (10%-15%) compared to a multi-gene panel (72%-83%). These data show that while most GCs were uniform in their practice of recommending confirmatory testing, they are mixed in their approach to the specific type of testing they would select. These results may help inform counseling approaches and consensus for this expanding group of patients.

Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes-Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) are a communication process to inform and prepare patients for genetic test results and the related medical management. An increasing number of healthcare providers are active in the delivery of cancer risk assessment and testing, which can have enormous benefits for enhanced patient care. However, genetics professionals remain key in the multidisciplinary care of at-risk patients and their families, given their training in facilitating patients' understanding of the role of genetics in cancer development, the potential psychological, social, and medical implications associated with cancer risk assessment and genetic testing. A collaborative partnership of non-genetics and genetics experts is the ideal approach to address the growing number of patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The goal of this practice resource is to provide allied health professionals an understanding of the key components of risk assessment for HBOC as well as the use of risk models and published guidelines for medical management. We also highlight what patient types are appropriate for genetic testing, what are the most appropriate test(s) to consider, and when to refer individuals to a genetics professional. This practice resource is intended to serve as a resource for allied health professionals in determining their approach to delivering comprehensive care for families and individuals facing HBOC. The cancer risk and prevalence figures in this document are based on cisgender women and men; the risks for transgender or non-binary individuals have not been studied and therefore remain poorly understood.

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research.

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.

The role of the genetic testing industry in patient education of hereditary cancer: An observational study assessing the quality of pre-test patient education videos

Abstract Objectives Genetic testing (GT) companies have developed patient education videos to supplement or replace pre-test genetic counseling (GC) by certified genetic counselors (CGC). The aim of this study was to assess the quality of these videos compared to the standard of care (SOC). Methods Videos from four major GT companies were selected from an internet search identifying pre-test patient education videos. A scoring rubric with 22 questions and 36 total points was devised to assess quality metrics, as described by the National Cancer Institute and National Society of Genetic Counselors. Twenty-two individuals with varying genetics expertise (3 gynecologic oncologists, 3 academic generalists, 4 CGC, a genetics community health worker, 3 cancer care navigators, and 8 medical students) scored each video. Scorers were blinded to others' assessments. Results Invitae had the highest median score (26/36), followed by Myriad (22/36), Ambry (17.5/36), and Color (15/36). All videos scored highly in explaining DNA basics, cancer development, and hereditary cancer predisposition. All addressed benefits of GT but failed to address potential disadvantages. All scored poorly in explaining medical terms and different GT options. There was variability in addressing patient concerns including cost, privacy, and procedure. Conclusions There is significant variation in the content of pre-test patient education videos between GT companies. None of the videos met the SOC for pre-test GC, and none addressed disadvantages of GT, possibly due to a conflict of interest. With improvement in content, accessibility, and use of interactive platforms, these videos may serve as an adjunct to in-person pre-test GC.

Please Wait for the Host to Start This Meeting: A Push for H.R. 3235 Amid COVID-19.

Please Wait for the Host to Start This Meeting: A Push for H.R. 3235 Amid COVID-19.

Positive and negative professionalism experiences of genetic counseling students in the United States and Canada.

Many aspects of genetic counseling training programs have been examined over the years. However, no study has explored professional or unprofessional behaviors genetic counseling graduate students experience during their training, and how these behaviors influence satisfaction with their training. This exploratory study examined students' experiences with program leaders, instructors, supervisors, and other trainees. Specific experiences included actions of favoritism, bias, negativity, abuse of power, and examples of positive role modeling. A survey was sent to all members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors and program directors in order to reach graduates of Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling (ACGC)-accredited programs from 2015-2019 who were eligible to participate. Responses to questions relating to demographics, satisfaction with graduate education, behaviors experienced or seen during graduate school, and reporting of inappropriate behaviors were collected and analyzed. Results demonstrated that 95% of the genetic counseling graduates were highly satisfied with their graduate education and those who experienced inappropriate behaviors during their training were somewhat less satisfied (p=.04). Individuals who felt more prepared by their graduate education were more satisfied with their graduate education (p<.01). Being publicly embarrassed or humiliated, being made to feel like a burden in clinic, or being subjected to negative or offensive behavior based on their personal beliefs or personal characteristics (excluding areas of gender, race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation) were all negatively associated with satisfaction (all p<.04). We conclude that this survey could serve as a "Genetic Counseling Training Experiences Assessment" which could be incorporated into annual evaluations required by the ACGC. Implementation of this assessment would enhance the current evaluations of genetic counseling training programs and provide important information regarding student experiences during their training.

Advancing the genetic counseling profession through research: Identification of priorities by the National Society of Genetic Counselors research task force.

To help advance research critical to the achievement of the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) strategic objectives, coordination and prioritization of society resources are needed. NSGC convened a task force to advance research necessary for the achievement of our strategic objectives by reviewing existing society-supported research efforts identifying gaps in current research, and coordinating society resources, the task force was formed in order to coordinate and prioritize society resources to advance research critical to the achievement of our strategic objectives. The task force developed a research agenda outlining high-priority research questions for the next 5years. The questions are organized into four domains: (a) Genetic Counseling Clients; (b) Genetic Counseling Process and Outcomes; (c) Value of Genetic Counseling Services; and (d) Access to Genetic Counseling Services. This framework can be used to advocate for research and funding priorities within NSGC and with other key research entities to stimulate the growth and advancement of the genetic counseling profession.