Trial reportJournal of genetic counseling2025
Assessing perceived empathy based on genetic counselor gender using a randomized, hypothetical prenatal genetic counseling scenario design.
Trial report 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing perceived empathy based on genetic counselor gender using a randomized, hypothetical prenatal genetic counseling scenario design.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Trial
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
Males in the genetic counseling field report facing negative perceptions related to their empathic ability. While these experiences have been explored qualitatively from the genetic counselor (GC) perspective, there currently is no research on the counselee or observer perspective of GC empathy as a function of GC gender. Our study aimed to determine whether individuals from the lay population perceive written empathic responses in a genetic counseling text scenario to be less empathetic from a genetic counselor who is written to be a man compared with a woman GC. Using a randomized two-arm trial with parallel groups, 139 participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk, and 138 were presented with a hypothetical scripted prenatal genetic counseling scenario in written form involving a couple being counseled by either a male GC or female GC. Participants rated GC empathy based on a modified Consultation and Relational Empathy measure. Demographic characteristics and an item asking for the identification of GC gender were collected. Regression analyses were performed to identify whether GC gender and other demographic variables predicted empathy ratings. The primary analysis (N = 138) did not demonstrate a significant difference in empathy ratings based on GC gender. Exploratory analyses of a subsample who accurately recalled GC gender (N = 75) and a subsample re-grouped based on participants' report of GC gender (N = 126) show that the scenario with a scripted male GC received lower average empathy rating than the scenario with a female GC (p's < 0.05). Furthermore, we demonstrate that participants who reported having prior genetic counseling experience in a non-prenatal setting rate empathy as lower than those with prenatal experience. Overall, exploratory results suggest empathy is perceived by the lay population as different between a male and female GC, even when the content and dialogue of a written counseling scenario are identical. Further research is warranted to investigate GC gender and empathy.
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.