ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
An exploration of delegation practices regarding the utilization of genetic counseling assistants for disclosure of genetic testing results.
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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of genetic assistant competencies using the Delphi consensus building method.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- An exploration of delegation practices regarding the utilization of genetic counseling assistants for disclosure of genetic testing results.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic counselors (GCs) play a crucial role in the healthcare system, providing education, support and guidance regarding genetic risk assessment, testing and results interpretation. To help GCs practice at the highest level of their expertise, the role of the genetic counseling assistant (GCA) was introduced, focusing on tasks like administrative support and patient care coordination. Although GCs typically handle the disclosure of test results, there is limited research on the delegation of results disclosure to GCAs. This study explores GCs' perspectives on delegating negative and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) genetic test results disclosures to GCAs. A quantitative survey was conducted among GCs practicing in the United States and Canada. Results revealed that while the majority of GCs were willing to delegate both negative and VUS results, few currently do so. Oncology GCs exhibited greater willingness and actual delegation of VUS disclosures relative to other specialties. Effective communication skills, level of genetics knowledge, and willingness to seek help were identified as the most influential attributes on GCs' confidence in GCAs' abilities to disclose test results. The most frequent concern about GCAs disclosing negative and VUS results was remaining suspicion for an underlying genetic etiology. Additionally, GCs were concerned about delegating VUS disclosures since patients more frequently struggle to understand those results. A triaging system to determine suitable results for a GCA to disclose and extensive shadowing of GCs disclosing results were proposed as methods of building GCs' confidence in the ability of a GCA to disclose test results. Ultimately, a better understanding of the discrepancy between GCs' willingness to delegate results disclosures and actual delegation practices is essential if the GCA scope of practice were to include results disclosure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.