Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38339832›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025

Graduate training, credentialing, and continuing education to prepare genetic counselors for laboratory roles-Results of a national survey.

Lisa Schwartz, Mia S Mackall, Aishwarya Arjunan, McKinsey Goodenberger, Rachel Mills, Chloe Ham, Sarah Witherington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lisa SchwartzDepartment of Biomedical Laboratory Sciences, The George Washington University, Ashburn, Virginia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4981-4948
Mia S MackallClinical Genetic Services, Natera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1826-6299
Aishwarya ArjunanDepartment of Medical Affairs, GRAIL, LLC., Menlo Park, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7863-2388
McKinsey GoodenbergerDivision of Laboratory Genetics and Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9560-6344
Rachel MillsMS Genetic Counseling Program, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4420-9503
Chloe HamMD Program, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-8125-1561
Sarah WitheringtonOncology Genetic Services, BioReference Health, LLC, Elmwood Park, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0859-4061

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opportunities for genetic counselors to work in a variety of practice settings have greatly expanded, particularly in the laboratory. This study aimed to assess attitudes of genetic counselors working both within and outside of the laboratory setting regarding (1) the re-wording and/or expansion of key measures of genetic counselors' competency, including practice-based competencies (PBCs) and board examination, to include laboratory roles, (2) preparation and transferability of competencies developed in master's in genetic counseling (MGC) programs to different roles, (3) need of additional training for genetic counselors to practice in laboratory settings, and (4) preferred methods to obtain that training. An e-blast was sent to ABGC diplomats (N = 5458) with a link to a 29-item survey with 12 demographic questions to compare respondents to 2021 NSGC Professional Status Survey (PSS) respondents. Statistical comparisons were made between respondents working in the laboratory versus other settings. Among 399 responses received, there was an oversampling of respondents working in the laboratory (52% vs. 20% in PSS) and in non-direct patient care positions (47% vs. 25% in PSS). Most respondents agreed the PBCs were transferable to their work yet favored making the PBCs less direct patient care-focused, expanding PBCs to align with laboratory roles, adding laboratory-focused questions to the ABGC exam, and adding laboratory-focused training in MGC programs. Most agreed requiring post-MGC training would limit genetic counselors' ability to change jobs. Genetic counselors working in the laboratory reported being significantly less prepared by their MGC program for some roles (p < 0.001) or how the PBCs applied to non-direct patient care positions (p < 0.001). Only 53% of all respondents agreed that NSGC supports their professional needs and others in their practice area, and genetic counselors working in the laboratory were significantly less likely to agree (p = 0.002). These sentiments should be further explored.

Indexed as

CounselorsCredentialingEducation, ContinuingEducation, GraduateGenetic CounselingLaboratoriesAdultFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnaireseducationgenetic counselorsprofessional development

Identifiers

PMID38339832
PMCPMC11726605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.