Abstract
Utilizing the tenet, “Relationship is integral to the genetic counseling process” from the Reciprocal Engagement Model (REM) of genetic counseling practice, this study sought to explore the relationship between the genetic counselor and patient following a “life-limiting” prenatal diagnosis that resulted in a major loss (termination, stillbirth/miscarriage, or neonatal death). The specific aims of this study were to: 1) Understand and describe aspects of the genetic counselor-patient relationship in the context of the life-limiting prenatal diagnosis, and identify characteristics and actions of the 2) genetic counselor and 3) patient that influence the relationship. Genetic counselor (GC) participants were recruited via a web-based survey distributed by NSGC and the NSGC Prenatal SIG. Eligible GCs maintained a relationship with a patient beyond the prenatal diagnosis and had a willing patient participant. Individual 60-min audio-recorded telephone interviews were conducted with eight GC and 8 respective patients (n = 16) using parallel interview guides (n = 16). Transcriptions underwent thematic content analysis for systematic coding and identification of emergent themes. The GC-patient relationship was characterized by the evolution of communication and promoted by the supportive needs of the patient, the nature of the diagnosis, and characteristics and supportive actions of the participants. This exploratory study highlights the unique service of support offered by genetic counselors in the context of a life-limiting prenatal diagnosis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackerman, S. J., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2003). A review of therapist characteristics and techniques positively impacting the therapeutic alliance. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–33. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00146-0.
Bachelor, A., Meunier, G., Laverdiére, O., & Gamache, D. (2010). Patient attachment to therapist: Relation to patient personality and symptomatology, and their contributions to the therapeutic alliance. Psychotherapy, 47(4), 454–468. doi:10.1037/a0022079.
Bailey, K. G. (1988). Psychological kinship: implications for the helping profession. Psychotherapy, 25(1), 132–141.
Berkenstadt, M., Shiloh, S., Barkai, G., Katznelson, M., & Goldman, B. (1999). Perceived Personal Out-come (PPC): A new concept in measuring outcome of genetic counseling. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 82, 53–59.
Bernhardt, B., Biesecker, B. B., & Mastromarino, C. L. (2000). Goals, benefits, and outcomes of genetic counseling: patient and genetic counselor assessment. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 94(3), 189–197.
Biesecker, B. B. (2001). Goals of genetic counseling. Clinical Genetics, 60, 323–330.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research. Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Busseri, M., & Tyler, J. D. (2004). Patient-therapist agreement on target problems, working alliance, and counseling outcome. Psychotherapy Research, 14(1), 77–88. doi:10.1093/ptr/kph005.
Castonguay, L. G., Constantino, M. J., & Grosse Holtforth, M. (2006). The working alliance: where are we and where should we go? Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43(3), 271–279.
DeSantis, L., & Noel Ugarriza, D. (2000). The concept of theme as used in qualitative nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22, 351–372.
Eugster, S. L., & Wampold, B. E. (1996). Systematic effects of participant role on evaluation of the psychotherapy session. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 1020–1028.
Evans, M., Bergum, V., Bamforth, S., & Macphail, S. (2004). Relational Ethics and Genetic Counseling. Nursing Ethics, 11(5), 459–471. doi:10.1191/0969733004ne724oa.
Fonseca, A., Nazaré, B., & Canavarro, M. C. (2012). Parental psychological distress and quality of life after a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of congenital anomaly: a controlled comparison study with parents of healthy infants. Disability and Health Journal, 5(2), 67–74. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2011.11.001.
Fox, M., Weil, J., & Resta, R. (2007). Why we do what we do: Commentary on a reciprocal-engagement model of genetic counseling practice. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16(6), 729–730. doi:10.1007/s10897-007-9118-z.
Gadow, S. (1999). Relational narrative: the postmodern turn in nursing ethics. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 13, 57–70.
Gaff, C. L., & Bylund, C. (2010). Family communication about genetics: theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartmann, J. E., Veach, P. M., MacFarlane, I. M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2015). Genetic Counselor Perceptions of Genetic Counseling Session Goals: A Validation Study of the Reciprocal-Engagement Model. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 24(2), 225–237. doi:10.1007/s10897-013-9647-6.
Jackson, B., Dimmock, J., Taylor, I. M., & Hagger, M. S. (2012). The tripartite efficacy framework in client-therapist rehabilitation interactions: implications for relationship quality and client engagement. Rehabilitation Psychology, 57(4), 308–319. doi:10.1037/a0030062.
Kessler, S. (1997). Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. IX. Teaching and counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 6, 287–295.
Kivlighan, D. M., Gelso, C. J., Ain, S., Hummel, A. M., & Markin, R. D. (2014). The therapist, the client, and the real relationship: An actor-partner interdependence analysis of treatment outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology. doi:10.1037/cou0000012.
Lalor, J. G., Begley, C. M., & Galavan, E. (2008). A grounded theory study of information preference and coping styles following antenatal diagnosis of foetal abnormality. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64(2), 185–194. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04778.x.
Leach, M. J. (2005). Rapport: a key to treatment success. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 11(4), 262–265. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2005.05.005.
Moore, C. D. (2012). The caregiver-provider relationship assessment: measuring family caregivers’ perceptions of relationship quality with health care providers. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 35(1), 104–110. doi:10.1177/0163278711417859.
Pierson, W. (1999). Considering the nature of intersubjectivity within professional nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2), 294–302.
Putzer, G. J. & Park, Y. (2012). Are Physicians Likely to Adopt Emerging Mobile Technologies? Attitudes and Innovation Factors Affecting Smartphone Use in the Southeastern United States. Perspectives in Health Information Management / AHIMA, American Health Information Management Association. 9 (Spring):1b.
Redlinger-Grosse, K., Veach, P. M., Cohen, S., Leroy, B. S., Macfarlane, I. M., & Zierhut, H. (2015). Defining Our Clinical Practice: The Identification of Genetic Counseling Outcomes Utilizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 25(2), 239–257. doi:10.1007/s10897-015-9864-2.
Schapira, L. (2013). The essential elements of a therapeutic presence. Cancer, 119, 1609–1610. doi:10.1002/cncr.27946.
Sexton, T. L., & Whiston, S. C. (1994). The status of the counseling relationship: An empirical review, theoretical implications, and research directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 22, 6–78.
Shick, T. G., Collins, B. S., & Felleman, H. E. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of patient–therapist perspectives of the working alliance. Psychotherapy Research, 17(6), 629–642. doi:10.1080/10503300701320611.
Skirton, H. (2001). The Patient’s perspective of genetic counseling — a grounded theory study. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10(4), 311–329.
Skovholt, T. M. (2005). The cycle of caring: a model of expertise in the helping professions. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27(1), 82–93.
Skovholt, T. M., Yoo, S., & Hall, B. (1999). Hazards of Practice in Helping Professions Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Hazards of Practice in Helping Professions. 47–60. http://210.101.116.28/W_files/kiss61/1v400035_pv.pdf.
Sparker, A. (2005). Narrative analysis: exploring the whats and hows of personal stories. In I. Holloway (Ed.), Qualitative research in health care (1st ed., pp. 191–208). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Taber, B. J., Leibert, T. W., & Agaskar, V. R. (2011). Relationships among patient-therapist personality congruence, working alliance, and therapeutic outcome. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 48(4), 376–380. doi:10.1037/a0022066.
Veach, P. M., Truesdell, S. E., LeRoy, B. S., & Bartels, D. M. (1999). Patient perceptions of the impact of genetic counseling: an exploratory study. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 8(4), 191–216.
Veach, P. M., LeRoy, B. S., & Bartels, D. M. (2003). Facilitating the genetic counseling process: a practice manual. New York: Springer.
Veach, P. M., Bartels, D. M., & Leroy, B. S. (2007). Coming full circle: a reciprocal-engagement model of genetic counseling practice. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 16(6), 713–728. doi:10.1007/s10897-007-9113-4.
Victoor, A., Delnoij, D. M. J., Friele, R. D., & Rademakers, J. J. D. J. M. (2012). Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 272. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-272.
Wheeler, C. K., Said, H., Prucz, R., Rodrich, R. J., & Mathes, D. W. (2011). Social media in plastic surgery practices: emerging trends in North America. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 31(4), 435–441. doi:10.1177/1090820X114074.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Authors Williams, S. R., Author Berrier, K. L., Author Redlinger-Grosse, K. and Author Edwards, J. declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human Studies
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5).
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Animal Studies
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(PDF 183 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, S.R., Berrier, K.L., Redlinger-Grosse, K. et al. Reciprocal Relationships: the Genetic Counselor-Patient Relationship Following a Life-Limiting Prenatal Diagnosis. J Genet Counsel 26, 337–354 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0016-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0016-0