Ahrens, Mary

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.

AbstractThese cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at‐risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Genetic Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensivereview of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provid information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Key components include the intake (medical and family histories), psychosocial assessment (assessment of risk perception), cancer risk assessment (determination and communication of risk), molecular testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (regulations, informed consent, and counseling process), and follow‐up considerations. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.