An examination of the factors contributing to the expansion of subspecialty genetic counseling.

In recent years, genetic counselors have moved into increasingly varied areas of patient care. Yet limited information is known about how these genetic counselors transitioned from more general clinical practice to subspecialized practice. This study was designed to answer three research questions: (1) What common factors establish a need for a genetic counselor in a subspecialty setting? (2) How do genetic counselors in subspecialties establish their positions? (3) Once established, how do the positions of these genetic counselors evolve as the subspecialty expands? Phone interviews with subspecialized genetic counselors led to the development of an online survey distributed through the National Society of Genetic Counselors ListServ. Sixty-eight of the 144 initial participants met eligibility criteria for participation as subspecialty genetic counselors in a clinical role. Physician interest in hiring a genetic counselor, clinical need, genetic counselor interest in subspecialty area, and available genetic testing were commonly reported as contributing factors to position creation. Most subspecialty genetic counseling positions were created as new positions, rather than evolved from a previous position. Over time, subspecialty positions drew more departmental funding and included increased clinical coordination or administrative responsibilities. The results of this study can encourage genetic counselors to collaborate with their medical institutions to utilize their skill-set in diverse areas of patient care.

When to tell and test for genetic carrier status: perspectives of adolescents and young adults from fragile X families.

We report here on our findings from adolescent and young adult females (ages 14-25) with a family history of fragile X syndrome regarding their perceptions of the optimal ages for (1) learning fragile X is inherited, (2) learning one could be a carrier for fragile X, and (3) offering carrier testing for fragile X. Three groups were enrolled: those who knew they were carriers or noncarriers and those who knew only they were at-risk to be a carrier. Only 2 of the 53 participants felt that offering carrier testing should be delayed until the age of 18 years. Participants who knew only that they were at-risk to be a carrier provided older optimal ages for offering carrier testing than those who knew their actual carrier status. Participants did not express regret or negative emotions about the timing of the disclosure of genetic risk information regarding their own experiences. Participants' reasoning behind reported ages for informing about genetic risk and offering carrier testing varied depending on what type of information was being disclosed, which carrier status group the participant belonged to, and the preferred age for learning the information. Study findings suggest that decisions regarding the timing to inform about genetic risk and offer testing should be tailored to the individual needs of the child and his/her family.