Are genetic counselors prepared to counsel active‐duty service members? A survey of genetic counselors' self‐efficacy, counseling techniques, and knowledge of military policy. Issue 6 (11th August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kamen, Michael; Hellwig, Lydia D.; Maloney, Kristin A.; Scott, Jessica; Turner, Clesson; Dixon, Shannan
• Is Part Of: Journal of genetic counseling. Volume 31:Issue 6(2022)
• Page Start: 1363
• Page End: 1372
• Publication Date: 2022-08-11
• Subjects: counseling techniques -- genetic counseling -- policy -- psychosocial -- underrepresented populations; Genetic counseling -- Periodicals; 616.042
• DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1611
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-7700

Abstract

Abstract: Given the expected rise in genomic sequencing projects within the US Military and the increased availability of genetic testing to the United States as a whole, current and prospective active‐duty service members (SMs) may undergo genetic counseling services in the civilian sector for pre‐test and post‐test counseling. The overall goal of this study was to better understand genetic counselors' preparedness to address military‐specific policies and psychosocial needs of patients from this underrepresented population. Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors were asked to complete a four‐part survey including demographic information, Likert scale questions to separately rate self‐efficacy when working with civilians and SMs, case scenarios with multiple‐choice options and open‐ended responses to assess knowledge of military policy, and open‐ended questions regarding psychosocial scenarios related to military service. Eighty‐eight responses were analyzed using Microsoft Office Excel for the qualitive thematic analysis and SPSS/RStudio for the quantitative data. While over 75% ( n = 69/88, SD = 0.48) of surveyed genetic counselors scored 4 of 4 on knowledge of military policy and reported similarly high levels of self‐efficacy when working with SMs (mean = 26.77 out of 30, SD = 4.15) and the general population (mean = 27.99 out of 30, SD = 4.31), the qualitative data suggested an alternative perspective. Up to 57% ( n = 50/88) of responses were scored as expressing low confidence concerning knowledge of military policy. One potential explanation for this uncertainty may be due to participants reporting that they never (69.32% ( n = 61/88]) or are unsure if (12.50% ( n = 11/88]) they received training related to providing counseling services to SMs. We suggest the establishment of educational initiatives for genetic counselors focusing on how to discuss genetic testing with SMs in relation to their health and safety, well‐being, and potential employment implications.