Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42469384›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Harmonising the scope of practice for genetic counsellors in the D-A-CH region: a cross-border consensus for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Gunda Schwaninger, Kathrin Taxer, Wera Hofmann, Christophe Cordier, Camila Gabriel, Johanna Tecklenburg, Johannes Zschocke, Simone Heidemann

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Genomics cycle: discover, diagnose, interpret, act.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026
    Article
  2. Beyond the sequence.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gunda SchwaningerInstitute of Human Genetics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. gunda.schwaninger@i-med.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2120-848X
Kathrin TaxerInstitute of Human Genetics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0077-1385
Wera HofmannGerman Society of Human Genetics Genetic Counsellor Commission Members, Berlin, Germany.
Christophe CordierGerman Society of Human Genetics Genetic Counsellor Commission Members, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7806-3501
Camila GabrielGerman Society of Human Genetics Genetic Counsellor Commission Members, Berlin, Germany.
Johanna TecklenburgGerman Society of Human Genetics Genetic Counsellor Commission Members, Berlin, Germany.
Johannes ZschockeInstitute of Human Genetics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0046-8274
Simone HeidemannGerman Society of Human Genetics Genetic Counsellor Commission Members, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid integration of genomics into clinical practice has increased the demand for genetic counselling services. While the genetic counsellor (GC) profession is well established in the Anglo-American healthcare systems, the D-A-CH countries, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, operate under distinct, physician-led legal frameworks. To ensure high-quality care and professional mobility, a harmonised definition of the GC's role is necessary. The newly founded GfH Commission for GCs, in collaboration with the national human genetics societies of Germany (GfH), Austria (ÖGH), and Switzerland (SGMG), the Association of German Human Geneticists (BVDH), and the Swiss Association of GCs (ASCG), conducted a multi-stage consensus-building process. The methodology involved a comparative analysis of national legal prerequisites and the application of the entrustable professional activities framework to define the interprofessional interface between GCs and medical geneticists (MGs). The resulting scope of practice (SoP) categorizes competencies across three clinical phases: pre-counselling preparation, the active counselling process, and post-analytical follow-up. The SoP distinguishes between independent GC tasks, shared clinical responsibilities, and tasks requiring MGs. Key to this model is the preservation of the legal physician-prerogative for aspects like the final medical diagnosis and test-ordering while maximizing the GC's contribution to patient-centred communication and care. This cross-border consensus represents a landmark in European professional policy, providing a scalable blueprint for the integration of GCs into regulated medical systems. By harmonising standards across the D-A-CH countries, the SoP ensures quality assurance, provides a robust evidence base for future legislative recognition and reimbursement of GCs, and facilitates professional mobility in Europe. Genetic counsellor, professional policy, D-A-CH region, interprofessional collaboration, entrustable professional activities, scope of practice, Genetische Fachberater, GfH, ÖGH, SGMG, BVDH, ASCG.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingAustriaGermanyHumansSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID42469384
PMCPMC13634040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.