Genetic Counselors’ Religiosity &amp; Spirituality: Are Genetic Counselors Different from the General Population?

Religion and spirituality (R/S) are important components of many individuals’ lives, and spirituality is often employed by women coping with pregnancy complications. To characterize how prenatal genetic counselors might address spiritual issues with patients, 283 English and Spanish speaking women receiving prenatal genetic counseling in Houston, Texas were surveyed post‐counseling using both the Brief RCope and questions regarding interest in spiritual exploration. Genetic counselors were concurrently surveyed to identify religious/spiritual language used within sessions and perceived importance of R/S. Genetic counselors were significantly more likely to identify R/S as important to a patient when patients used religious/spiritual language (p < 0.001). Conversely, when no religious/spiritual terms were present, the counselor felt uncertain about the importance of R/S 63 % of the time. However, 67 % of patients reported that they felt comfortable sharing their faith as it relates to their pregnancy, and 93 % reported using positive religious coping. Less than 25 % reported a desire for overt religious actions such as prayer or scripture exploration. Therefore, most patients’ desires for spiritual exploration center in the decision making and coping processes that are in line with the genetic counseling scope of practice. Thus, counselors should feel empowered to incorporate spiritual exploration into their patient conversations.

Section: Practice Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spiritual Exploration in the Prenatal Genetic Counseling Session

Sagaser¹,

Hashmi²,

Carter³

et al. 2016

“…Within the context of genetic counseling, patients commonly consider these same constructs while making decisions about genetic testing, pursuit of treatment, and pre-term abortion (Schwartz et al 2000;White 2006). Moreover, a majority of genetic counselors in another study identified themselves as moderately to highly spiritual (Cragun et al 2009). Despite equivocal findings, it is important to consider the significance of these constructs for genetic counselors' sense of meaning.…”

Section: Issues Of Meaning In Genetic Counselor Professional Developmmentioning

confidence: 97%

Development, Experience, and Expression of Meaning in Genetic Counselors’ Lives: an Exploratory Analysis

Wells

Veach

Martyr

et al. 2015

Genetic counselors routinely engage with patients and families who grapple with questions of meaning while making decisions about genetic risk. Research and theory demonstrate genetic counselors gain important personal insights through their work and develop professionally from self-reflective practice regarding their beliefs and values. Data are lacking, however, about the nature of the meaning genetic counselors bring to their profession and how they directly experience and/or navigate issues of meaning within clinical practice over time. Accordingly, a national sample (N = 298) of practicing genetic counselors completed a brief survey assessing their demographic characteristics and willingness to participate in a semi-structured telephone interview exploring their views on meaning as they relate to their clinical work and professional development. Sixty-eight individuals of varied experience levels were interviewed about: 1) how they define a meaningful life for themselves; 2) lifetime sources of influence on their sense of meaning; 3) how they experience meaning within both personal and professional contexts; 4) work-related contexts that reaffirm and challenge their sense of meaning; and 5) how their sense of meaning has changed over time. Twenty-five interviews were analyzed using Consensual Qualitative Research methods, at which point, data saturation was reached. Five themes, 32 domains, and 29 categories were extracted. Common findings include: importance of satisfying relationships; helping others; personal fulfillment; personal and patient experiences of illness and loss; religious and/or spiritual foundations; value conflicts; competing obligations; challenges to meaning; development of empathy; resiliency; and increased humility. Results suggest the importance of professional venues for discussions of meaning (e.g., genetic counseling program curricula, continuing education, and peer supervision/consultation). Additional findings, practice implications, and research recommendations are presented.

“…In recent years, many advocates within and beyond religious institutions and medical organizations have suggested incorporating R/S discussion into medical activities (Anderson 2009; The Joint Commission 2010; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 2009). However, debates continue about the potential usefulness of such incorporation in relation to patient outcomes and experiences (Cragun et al 2009;Reis et al 2007;White 2009). Within these debates, patient perspectives on incorporating religion and/or spirituality into healthcare provision are sparse, and we found no research evaluating outcomes of such discussions.…”

Section: Genetic Counseling Practice Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Be Prepared if I Bring It Up:” Patients’ Perceptions of the Utility of Religious and Spiritual Discussion During Genetic Counseling

Thompson¹,

Cragun

Sumerau

et al. 2016

Self Cite

As debates continue about the relevance of religion to health care, research is needed to guide decisions about whether genetic counselors (GCs) should routinely address religious and/or spiritual (R/S) issues with their patients. We conducted an online survey to gauge patient perspectives on this issue. Among the 70 respondents, frequencies of closed-ended responses and thematic analyses of open-ended responses revealed multiple patient concerns related to R/S discussions with GCs. Although 60 respondents reported being R/S, only a small minority would want to discuss R/S issues if it meant less time discussing medical information. Most respondents also expressed opinions that: 1) genetic counseling should be about science; 2) GCs are not qualified to discuss R/S issues; 3) other outlets are available to meet the needs of patients who want R/S counseling; and/or 4) R/S discussions are more likely to be acceptable if patients broach the topic or in specific circumstances (e.g., when patients are facing end-of life issues). Overall, responses suggest routine or comprehensive R/S assessments or discussions are not necessary and that GCs would be best equipped to help all their patients if they were prepared to listen, be supportive, and make referrals when R/S issues arise in clinic.