ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2026
Characterizing psychosocial assessments across genetic counseling sessions through qualitative content analysis.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although psychosocial support and assessment is a required competency of genetic counselors (GCs), how the psychosocial assessment is actualized in sessions is not well studied. We aimed to describe the landscape of psychosocial assessments in clinical genetic counseling sessions at a single institution through direct analysis of audio recordings. Clinical GCs at Stanford Medicine and their new English-speaking adult patients were eligible. After GCs and patients completed demographic surveys, we audio-recorded sessions for which the GCs and patients enrolled. Purposive sampling, prioritizing a breadth of GCs, specialties, indications, and patient demographics, was used to select audio recordings for transcription and analysis. We used a blended inductive and deductive approach to develop the codebook. Code frequency and memos were assessed for descriptive content analysis of psychosocial components of the sessions. We analyzed 23 audio recordings, representing nine GCs across cancer, cardiology, and prenatal. We identified three distinct psychosocial styles that GCs used: "Direct," "Informational," "Casual." While all styles incorporated emotion-focused conversation to some degree, only the "Direct Psychosocial Style" included an explicit psychosocial assessment of patients. Psychosocial assessments consisted of direct feelings questions, emotion-focused responses, and advanced empathy. The "Informational Psychosocial Style" was characterized by GC responses to patient feelings and sympathy statements, without consistent exploration of patient feelings throughout the session. The "Casual Psychosocial Style" was characterized by an observable rapport between the GC and patient that carried throughout the session, allowing for psychosocial issues to be explored organically. GCs varied in their use of each style across patients, specialty, and indication. In conclusion, we observed three distinct psychosocial styles, of which only the Direct Psychosocial Style had an overt psychosocial assessment. Further research is needed to examine patient outcomes within each style.
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.