Back to Authors

Reiser, Catherine A.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7003-3113

Mayo Clinic

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Citations 2

A qualitative focus group analysis: Increasing fieldwork capacity in genetic counseling training programs
Jirik, Rebecca , Redlinger‐Grosse, Krista , Davis, Claire Rebecca , Nusbaum, Rachel , Reiser, Catherine A. , Berninger, Taylor , Jirik, Rebecca

Journal of Genetic Counseling | February 16, 2024 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 71-85

10.1002/jgc4.1847 Get It

AbstractGenetic counselors are an integral part of the healthcare system; however, the number of genetic counselors in many parts of the United States is limited, impacting access to comprehensive healthcare for all patients. One solution to addressing this deficit includes modifying genetic counseling training programs to increase student enrollment. Fieldwork capacity, driven by a limited number of rotation sites and supervisors, produces a significant bottleneck to entering the profession. Other professions have reported on techniques to increase fieldwork capacity; however, the practicality of these techniques for genetic counseling training has yet to be explored. This study seeks to investigate the perspectives of key stakeholders in genetic counseling training programs on the practicality of techniques already posited in the literature from other allied health professions. Semi‐structured focus group interviews with 25 participants were conducted at the 2019 National Society of Genetic Counselors conference. Participants included program directors and supervisors from clinical, industry, and laboratory backgrounds. The focus group responses were analyzed using directed content analysis and a split coding technique, after which several themes emerged within the larger domains of rotation structures, systems infrastructure, skill‐building methods, and other novel techniques to increase fieldwork capacity. Emerging themes included the importance of finding quality student placements rather than maximizing the quantity of participatory cases; a need for transparency about the transferability of skills learned from novel experiences; scaffolding student entrustment to expand supervisor capacity; and recognizing nuances in implementation for individual programs. Overall, the results emphasize the importance of openness in communication to manage expectations for students and supervisors, who may be more hesitant to try novel rotation placements and skill‐building techniques. Genetic counseling programs may use these results to address the bottleneck of fieldwork capacity, increasing student enrollment.
Counseling Close to Home: Genetic Counselors’ Experiences with their own Family Members
Rust, Laura, Adamsheck, Hallee, Reiser, Catherine A. , Petty, Elizabeth M.

Journal of Genetic Counseling | August 16, 2017 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 225-240

10.1007/s10897-017-0138-z Get It

AbstractGenetic counselors are trained to provide personalized genetic information and support to clients and their families. When requests for counseling comes from the counselor's own family member, should that counselor still provide service? There is a paucity of literature regarding genetic counselors counseling their own family members and no specific recommendations regarding how to reply to requests for genetic information from relatives. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to report genetic counselors’ and genetic counseling students’ perspectives and experiences providing genetic counseling to relatives. In the present study, 423 genetic counselors and genetic counseling students completed a 70‐item web‐based survey that explored genetic counselors’ experiences counseling family members outside of a clinic setting. The majority (73%; n = 301/410) of respondents have been asked to provide genetic counseling. Over half (57%; n = 257/423) provided counseling, personalized genetic information or risk assessment to family members. Only a small fraction of respondents (11%; n = 45/420) responded that they received any formal training in their graduate education, or in any other capacity that addressed the issue of how genetic counselors should respond to genetic counseling requests made family members. Those who have were less likely to provide genetic counseling to a family member (p < 0.05). Respondents who provided genetic counseling to relatives were significantly more likely to think their colleagues would do the same. Those who never provided genetic counseling to relatives were more likely to think their colleagues would refer to an unrelated genetic counselor (p < 0.0001). We highlight how our results have clinical and professional implications and provide suggestions to generate discussion among genetic counselors on how they might respond to requests for counseling from family members.