Balancing Genetics (Science) and Counseling (Art) in Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Testing
- 754 Downloads
Genetic counselors frequently are called upon to assist patients in understanding the implications of prenatal testing information for their pregnancies and their family’s lives. The introduction of highly sensitive testing such as chromosomal microarray has generated additional kinds of uncertainty into the prenatal period. Counselors may feel uncomfortable or inadequately prepared to engage in discussions with prospective parents who are faced with making critical, and timely, decisions about a pregnancy based on uncertain information. As highly sensitive prenatal testing becomes routine in prenatal care, counselors may be in search of approaches to prenatal counseling, as well as specific skills to approach, engage with, and help families find resolution in such challenging circumstances. To assist genetic counselors, we describe practice skills and provide language for approaching conversations with prospective parents. When clinicians regularly provide care to patients and families making life-altering decisions under conditions of significant uncertainty, discomfort is common and compassion fatigue is likely. We make recommendations directly to the genetic counselor working in reproductive and perinatal settings to enhance training and self-care and to decrease discomfort in balancing the scientific- and art- demands of genetic counseling.
KeywordsGenetic counseling Uncertainty Prenatal testing Microarray Professional development
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Allison Werner-Lin, Judith L. M. McCoyd and Barbara A. Bernhardt declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bernhardt, B. A., Kellom, K., Barbarese, A., Faucett, W. A., & Wapner, R. J. (2014). An exploration of genetic counselors’ needs and experiences with prenatal chromosomal microarray testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23(6), 938–947. doi: 10.1007/s10897-014-9702-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Djurdjinovic, L. (2009). Psychosocial counseling. In W. Uhlmann, J. Schuette, & B. Yashar (Eds.), A guide to genetic counseling (2nd ed.). Wiley.Google Scholar
- Doka, K. J. (Ed.) (2002). Disenfranchised grief: New directions, challenges and strategies for practice. Champaign: Research Press.Google Scholar
- Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Lambert, M. J., & Barley, D. E. (2002). Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work (pp. 17–32). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Marks, J. H. (1993). The training of genetic counselors: Origins of a psychosocial model. In D. M. Bartels, B. S. LeRoy, & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Prescribing our future: Ethical challenges in genetic counseling (pp. 15–24). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Mathieu, F. (2007). Transforming compassion fatigue into compassion satisfaction: Top 12 self-care tips for helpers. Retrieved from http://www.compassionfatigue.org/pages/Top12SelfCareTips.pdf.
- McCoyd, J. L. M., & Walter, C. A. (2016). Grief and loss across the lifespan: A biopsychosocial approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
- Neimeyer, R. A. (2001). Meaning reconstruction & the meaning of loss. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Parker, A. M., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(6), 342–350.Google Scholar
- Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Estabrooks Hahn, S., Strecker, M. N., et al. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ task force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 77–83. doi: 10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rubel, M., Werner-Lin, A., Barg, F., Kellom, K. & Bernhardt, B. (2015). Expert knowledge influences decision-making for couples receiving positive prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Chicago, IL: Podium presentation. Annual meeting, American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
- Saleebey, D. (Ed.) (2006). The strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why less is more. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
- Taylor-Brown, S., & Johnson, A. M. (1998). Social work’s role in genetic services. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.Google Scholar
- Walser, S. A., Werner-Lin, A., Russell, A., Wapner, R. J., & Bernhardt, B. A. (2016). “Something extra on Chromosome 5”: parents’ understanding of positive prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA) results. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10897-016-9943-z.
- Wampold, B. E. (2010). Research evidence for common factors models: A historically situated perspective. In B. L. Duncan, S. D. Miller, B. E. Wampold, & M. A. Hubble (Eds.), The heart & soul of change (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: APA Press.Google Scholar
- Westerfield, L., Darilek, S., & van den Veyver, I. B. (2014). Counseling challenges with variants of uncertain significance and incidental findings in prenatal genetic screening and diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 3(3), 1018–1032. doi: 10.3390/jcm3031018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- White, R. J. (2005). A priming/temperament model of System 1 and System 2 decision-making processes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66(6-B), 3439.Google Scholar
- Winnicott, D. W. (1960). The theory of the parent-infant relationship. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41(6), 585–595 Accessed at http://icpla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Winnicott-D.-The-Theory-of-the-Parent-Infant-Relationship-IJPA-Vol.-41-pps.-585-595.pdf.PubMedGoogle Scholar