Search

Publication of original research, clinical experiences, and critical reviews of literature are vital to the growth of the genetic counseling field, delivery of genetic counseling services, and professional development of genetic counselors. Busy clinical schedules, lack of time and funding, and training that emphasizes clinical skills over research skills may make it difficult for new genetic counselors to turn their thesis projects into publications. This paper summarizes and elaborates upon a presentation aimed at de-mystifying the publishing process given at the 2008 National Society of Genetic Counselors Annual Education Conference. Specific topics include familiarizing prospective authors, particularly genetic counseling students, with the basics of the publication process and related ethical considerations. Former students' experiences with publishing master's theses also are described in hopes of encouraging new genetic counselors to submit for publication papers based on their thesis projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the medical and cultural perspectives on deafness it is important to determine if genetic counselors' attitudes toward deaf people can affect counseling sessions for deafness genes. One hundred fifty-eight genetic counselors recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv completed an online survey assessing attitudes toward deaf people and scenario-specific comfort levels discussing and offering genetic testing for deafness. Respondents with deaf/Deaf friends or who work in prenatal or pediatric settings had more positive attitudes toward deaf people than those without deaf/Deaf friends or those working in 'other' settings. More positive attitudes toward deaf people correlated with higher comfort level talking about genetic testing for the two scenarios involving culturally Deaf clients; and correlated with higher comfort level offering genetic testing to culturally Deaf clients wishing to have a deaf child. Attitudes and comfort level were not correlated in the scenarios involving hearing or non-culturally deaf clients. These results suggest that genetic counselors' attitudes could affect information provision and the decision making process of culturally Deaf clients. Cultural sensitivity workshops in genetic counseling training programs that incorporate personal interactions with culturally Deaf individuals are recommended. Additional suggestions for fostering personal interactions are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing within the early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) process, combined with genetic counseling and genetic evaluation, may define the cause of hearing loss, facilitate case management, and contribute to habilitation decisions. One gene, called GJB2, accounts for up to 50% of non-syndromic sensorineural hearing loss. Our early experience with a prospective longitudinal study of the impact of GJB2 testing in the newborn/early infancy period (n = 9 babies,10 parents) suggests that parents perceive that there are benefits of genetic testing for hearing loss, and understand important concepts about genetics and hearing loss after genetic counseling. GJB2-related hearing loss was confirmed in 5 babies. Additional findings illuminate the complexity of genetic test results, the importance of genetic evaluation in all individuals with hearing loss, and the difficulty in detecting some forms of syndromic hearing loss in the newborn period. Our experience highlights the importance o f combining genetic testing with genetic counseling and genetic evaluation. Professionals should be sensitive to ethical, cultural, and social aspects of genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]