ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Proxy patients' perceptions of genetic counselor empathy responses.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Empathy, the ability to understand and communicate another's experience to them, positively affects genetic counseling processes and outcomes. Genetic counseling, a specialty healthcare profession, provides education and support for those impacted by genetic disease; thus, empathy is critical. Limited studies have explored patients' perceptions of genetic counselor (GC) empathy responses. This study investigated the types of GC responses proxy patients perceived as most empathic and why. Female MTurk workers (n = 198) completed a survey containing two hypothetical genetic counseling scenarios (Fabry disease; postnatal diagnosis of cleft lip and palate) that ended with a patient statement followed by five different GC responses. Participants were asked to identify the GC response that best conveyed empathy and explain their choice. Every GC response was selected by at least one participant. Inductive content analysis of participants' rationales yielded six categories: Understanding, Problem Solving, Sympathizing, Focusing on the Patient, Validating, and Miscellaneous. Understanding was the most prevalent rationale for both scenarios (~ 50% each). While GC responses containing the words "I'm sorry…" were chosen most often for both scenarios (~ 45% each), Sympathizing was the rationale for only ~ 20% of these GC responses. Logistic regression analyses showed significant predictors varied across scenarios and between rationales, with few significant demographic predictors. Participants differed in preferences for empathy statements and rationales, signaling context and tailoring are important when considering empathy. Patient demographics are not recommended in predicting the type of GC patients may find empathic. Ongoing assessment of patients' feelings and needs (empathic resonance) will allow genetic counselors to tailor their empathy communication (expressed empathy) accordingly.
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.