The educational and counseling models are often touted as the two primary professional approaches to genetic counseling practice. Yet, research has not been conducted to examine how these approaches are used in practice. In the present study, we conducted quantitative communication analyses of BRCA1 genetic counseling sessions. We measured communication variables that represent content (e.g., a biomedical focus) and process (e.g., passive listening) to explore whether genetic counselor approaches are consistent with prevailing professional models. The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) was used to code 167 pre-test genetic counseling sessions of members of a large kindred with an identified BRCA1 mutation. Three experienced genetic counselors conducted the sessions. Creating composite categories from the RIAS codes, we found the sessions to be largely educational in nature with the counselors and clients devoting the majority of their dialogue to providing biomedical information (62 and 40%, respectively). We used cluster analytic techniques, entering the composite communication variables and identified four patterns of session communication: Client-focused psychosocial, biomedical question and answer, counselor-driven psychosocial, and client-focused biomedical. Moreover, we found that the counselors had unique styles in which they combined the use of education and counseling approaches. We discuss the importance of understanding the variation in counselor communication to advance the field and expand prevailing assumptions.
Breast cancer survivors must manage chronic side effects of original treatment. To manage these symptoms, communication must include both biomedical and contextual lifestyle factors. Sixty breast cancer survivors and 6 providers were recruited to test a conceptual model developed from uncertainty in illness theory and the dimensions of a patient-centered relationship. Visits were audio-taped, then coded using the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (Brown, Stewart, & Ryan, 2001). Consultations were found to be 52% patient-centered. Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) analysis showed that survivor self-reported fatigue level and conversation about symptoms were associated with survivor uncertainty, mood state, and survivor perception of patient-centered communication. Survivors may want to discuss persistent symptom concerns with providers, due to concerns about recurrence, and discuss lifestyle contextual concerns with others.
This study investigated uncertainty in individuals undergoing genetic counseling/testing for breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility. Sixty-three individuals from a single kindred with a known BRCA1 mutation rated uncertainty about 12 items on a five-point Likert scale before and 1 month after genetic counseling/testing. Factor analysis identified a five-item total uncertainty scale that was sensitive to changes before and after testing. The items in the scale were related to uncertainty about obtaining health care, positive changes after testing, and coping well with results. The majority of participants (76%) rated reducing uncertainty as an important reason for genetic testing. The importance of reducing uncertainty was stable across time and unrelated to anxiety or demographics. Yet, at baseline, total uncertainty was low and decreased after genetic counseling/testing (P = 0.004). Analysis of individual items showed that after genetic counseling/testing, there was less uncertainty about the participant detecting cancer early (P = 0.005) and coping well with their result (P < 0.001). Our findings support the importance to clients of genetic counseling/testing as a means of reducing uncertainty. Testing may help clients to reduce the uncertainty about items they can control, and it may be important to differentiate the sources of uncertainty that are more or less controllable. Genetic counselors can help clients by providing anticipatory guidance about the role of uncertainty in genetic testing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.