ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Enhancing rigor and justice in genetic counseling research with reflexivity and positionality.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating languishing in North American genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Introduction to the Special Issue on Research Methods in Genetic Counseling: Diverse Methods, Shared Purpose.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Qualitative research reporting in genetic counseling: A state-of-the-art assessment and recommendations for enhancing methodological congruence and quality.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Review
- Situating genetic counseling research: The role of the sociopolitical climate in research production and interpretation.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- Enhancing rigor and justice in genetic counseling research with reflexivity and positionality.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the rapidly evolving landscape of genetic counseling research, acknowledging the dynamic interplay between the researchers and the research is critical. Positionality, which encompasses how researchers' social, cultural, and professional identities intersect with their work, along with reflexive practices that promote self-awareness, emerge as essential tools in promoting transparency, rigor, and ethical integrity in research. In this article, we explore the importance of both positionality and reflexivity in genetic counseling research. By highlighting the impact of researchers' perspectives on study design, data interpretation, and knowledge translation, we seek to underscore how positionality and reflexivity can be used to confront biases and power imbalances in the research process. Our discussion extends to both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, showcasing the role of reflexive and positionality statements in enhancing research credibility, inclusivity, and justice. We have provided actionable guidance and reflective questions for constructing robust positionality statements and documenting reflexivity across research phases. Reflexive research practices may advance justice-oriented evidence that informs clinical practices, research, and the genetic counseling profession more broadly. At the same time, we must balance the need to disclose privilege and biases with the imperative to protect marginalized individuals from potential exploitation and harm, ensuring these disclosures do not reinforce existing power imbalances nor compromise safety and autonomy. By advancing reflexivity and positionality, this article advocates for a justice-centered approach to genetic counseling research, ensuring a more representative and ethically responsible body of knowledge.
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.