Affiliation:
1. College of Medicine University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio USA
2. Division of Human Genetics, Department of Pediatrics Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati Ohio USA
3. Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore Maryland USA
4. Counseling Program, College of Education, Criminal Justice, Human Services, and Information Technology University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio USA
Abstract
AbstractFieldwork supervision is integral to genetic counseling students' training and has the potential to impact how included students feel in the genetic counseling field. For example, in related counseling fields, when supervisees and supervisors discuss their personal similarities or differences in ethnicity, supervisees report a stronger supervisory working alliance (SWA) (Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 2001, 29, 102–113). However, the application of these studies on identity discussions to the genetic counseling field is currently unknown. The objective of this cross‐sectional questionnaire‐based study was to investigate (a) if genetic counseling students report having discussions of personal identity during fieldwork supervision, (b) who initiated any such discussions, (c) if there was a difference in the supervisory relationship between those who did and did not have discussions of personal identity, and (d) how students perceived the inclusivity of the genetic counseling profession and their genetic counseling programs. Discussions of personal identity were defined in this study as “discussions happening during supervision regarding how one or more aspects of personal identity impacts the provision of genetic counseling services and/or professional interactions” where personal identity included the student or supervisor's gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability status or other aspect of identity. Almost 40% of the participants (N = 190) reported discussing personal identity with their supervisor. For students identifying as white, discussions of personal identity were related to a stronger SWA (p = 0.014). However, for those with minoritized identities there was no relationship between the SWA and discussions of personal identity. Therefore, it is unclear from the current research whether discussions of personal identity can be an effective tool in improving inclusivity in the field of genetic counseling. Additional research is needed to explore the direct impact of identity discussions on the supervisory working alliance in genetic counseling supervision.