Healthcare decision makers' perspectives on the creation of new genetic counselor positions in North America: Exploring the case for psychiatric genetic counseling

• Published in: Journal of genetic counseling Vol. 32; no. 2; pp. 514 - 525
• Main Authors: Chanouha, Nour, Cragun, Deborah L., Pan, Vivian Y., Austin, Jehannine C., Hoell, Christin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2023
• Subjects: Availability; Clinical medicine; Clinical practice guidelines; Counselors; Counselors - psychology; Decision makers; Decision Making; Delivery of Health Care; Genetic counseling; Genetic Counseling - psychology; Genetic screening; Genetic testing; genetics services; Health care; Humans; Medical referrals; Mental disorders; North America; Patients; Physicians; position creation; psychiatric genetic counseling; Revenue; United States; Value; Workforce; United States; North America; genetic counseling; workforce; position creation; value; genetics services; psychiatric genetic counseling
• ISSN: 1059-7700; 1573-3599
• DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1663

Mental illnesses are common and highly heritable. Patients and their families want and benefit from receiving psychiatric genetic counseling (pGC). Though the pGC workforce is among the smallest of genetic counseling (GC) specialties, genetic counselors (GCs) want to practice in this area. A major barrier to the expansion of the pGC workforce is limited availability of advertised positions, but it remains unclear why this is the case. We used a qualitative approach to explore drivers for and barriers to the creation of GC positions (including pGC) at large centralized genetic centers in the United States and Canada that offer multiple specialty GC services. Individuals with responsibilities for making decisions about creating new clinical GC positions were interviewed using a semi‐structured guide, and an interpretive description approach was used for inductive data analysis. From interviews with 12 participants, we developed a theoretical model describing how the process of creating new GC positions required institutional prioritization of funding, which was primarily allocated according to physician referral patterns, which in turn were largely driven by availability of genetic testing and clinical practice guidelines. Generating revenue for the institution, improving physician efficiency, and reinforcing institutional mission were all regarded as valued outcomes that bolstered prioritization of funding for new GC positions. Evidence of patient benefit arising from new GC positions (e.g., pGC) seemed to play a lesser role. These findings highlight the tension between how institutions value GC (generating revenue, reacting to genetic testing), and how the GC profession sees its value (providing patient benefit, focus on counseling).