MacFarlane, Ian M.

AbstractResearch indicates genetic counseling patients often experience intense emotions. No studies, however, have investigated how genetic counseling students respond to patient affect. This survey study investigated student responses to patient emotions and select factors affecting their responses. One‐hundred fifty‐one genetic counseling students in North American programs wrote a response to each of three hypothetical prenatal scenarios, identical except for the patient affect expressed (anger, fear, or sadness). They also completed measures of empathy tendency and tolerance of negative affect and demographic questions. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), used to analyze the effects of major study variables on the types of responses given by participants, was significant. Follow‐up univariate ANCOVAs indicated small to moderate effect sizes for student clinical experience, race/ethnicity, and relationship status within and across scenarios. For example, as number of patients counseled increased, participants used more feeling reflections and fewer self‐involving statements. There were no significant differences in responses due to empathy tendency or affect tolerance. Most common responses were information provision and feeling reflections for the Anger scenario, information provision for the Fear scenario, and influencing responses for the Sadness scenario. Responses to each scenario typically involved multiple thoughts (range: 1–14; means ranged from 3.25 in the Sadness scenario to 3.62 in the Fear scenario). Most students (82%) reported the Anger scenario was the most difficult. Thematic analysis of reasons a scenario was difficult yielded four themes: Discomfort with situation/emotion, Positive countertransference, Uncertain how to respond, and Negative countertransference. Findings that clinical experience affects how participants responded to patient affect support the essential role of applied experience. Findings also support training and supervision to help genetic counseling students in North America learn ways to respond to strong patient emotions and recognize and manage countertransference.

AbstractMonitoring and blunting are coping styles that characterize how people respond when faced with personally threatening situations. High monitors tend to pay more attention to, scan for, and amplify threatening cues; high blunters tend to avoid information and seek distractions when faced with a threatening event. This study sought to investigate possible differential effects of monitoring and blunting coping styles on information preferences in a hypothetical cancer diagnosis scenario in the adult general public of Minnesota. In a survey administered at a large public venue (2016 Minnesota State Fair), participants were asked to imagine they carried a gene mutation and were diagnosed with colon cancer. They indicated their information preference [modified Cassileth Information Styles Questionnaire (MCISQ)], completed two coping style measures [Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS) and Threatening Medical Situations Inventory (TMSI)], rated their perceived severity of colon cancer (low, moderate, high), and answered demographic questions. Eight hundred fifty‐five individuals provided usable data. Participants classified as monitors on the TMSI had significantly higher MCISQ scores (i.e., preferred more information) than those classified as blunters (p = .004). Those scoring high on monitoring and low on blunting on the MBSS preferred significantly more information than those scoring high on both monitoring and blunting (p = .04). Linear regression analysis revealed being a monitor (TMSI), scoring high on monitoring (MBSS), rating colon cancer as more severe, and having a higher education level were significant positive predictors of MCISQ scores. Results suggest individual differences in coping style, perceived severity, and education level affect desire for information. Genetic counselors should consider these patient characteristics (e.g., asking patients about their information preferences) and tailor their approaches accordingly.

AbstractTwo prior studies suggest genetic counselors self‐disclose primarily because patients ask them to do so (Peters et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2006). However, scant research has investigated effects of counselor disclosure on genetic counseling processes and outcomes. In this study, 151 students (98 undergraduates, 53 graduates) completed one of three surveys describing a hypothetical genetic counseling session in which a patient at risk for FAP was considering whether to pursue testing or surveillance procedures. Dialogue was identical in all surveys, except for a final response to the question: “What would you do if you were me?” The counselor either revealed what she would do (Personal Disclosure), what other patients have done (Professional Disclosure), or deflected the question (No Disclosure). Imagining themselves as the patient, participants wrote a response to the counselor and indicated their perceptions of her. Participants rated thenon‐disclosingcounselor significantly lower in social attractiveness than either disclosing counselor, and less satisfying than theprofessional disclosingcounselor. Analysis of written responses yielded four themes: Made Decision, Sought Information, Expressed Thoughts/Feelings, and No Decision. Practice implications and research recommendations are provided.