Reproductive justice advocacy efforts among genetic counselors and family planning providers

Author:

Johnstonbaugh Hannah Z.1ORCID,Lee Jessica K.2,Semesky Patrick2,Sagaser Katelynn G.34

Affiliation:

1. Master's in Genetic Counseling Program University of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USA

2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences University of Maryland Medical System Baltimore Maryland USA

3. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore Maryland USA

4. Juno Diagnostics San Diego CA USA

Abstract

AbstractThroughout all areas of medical practice, genetic counselors (GCs) occupy a key position in promoting patients' personal autonomy while facilitating informed medical decision‐making. This professional position aligns with the concept of reproductive justice. Previous literature has attempted to define reproductive advocacy in medicine as well as the potential intersection of genetic counseling and reproductive justice advocacy work, yet limited data exist regarding GCs' perceptions of their role and involvement in reproductive justice advocacy work. This study aimed to identify the perceptions and actions of GCs regarding reproductive justice advocacy measures, as well as explore motivating factors influencing their attitudes and behaviors. Family planning providers, who tend to prioritize reproductive justice and advocacy, were surveyed to be a comparison group. We distributed an anonymous online survey within the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the Society of Family Planning (SFP) consisting of a 10‐item personality inventory and Likert scale questions exploring characteristics and behaviors regarding reproductive justice advocacy. Results from 252 eligible respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Chi‐square, and Mann–Whitney U analyses. NSGC members are significantly less involved in several areas of reproductive justice advocacy, including regular participation in advocacy efforts when compared to SFP members (p = 0.04). The most cited barrier to NSGC members' participation was feeling unsure how to become involved, a significant difference compared to SFP members (p = 0.01). Findings from this study, undertaken in the final days of Roe v. Wade, suggest that GCs want to be more involved in reproductive justice advocacy but are uncertain where to begin. Intersociety collaboration and intra‐society promotion of grassroots reproductive justice efforts may reduce this perceived barrier and others like it.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Genetics (clinical)

Reference23 articles.

1. Blackmun H. A. &Supreme Court of the United States. (1973).U.S. Reports: Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113. [Periodical]. Retrieved from the Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113/

2. Brown J.(2021).Not ready to make nice: Juggling unabashed advocacy and NSGC's insidious culture of "nice". The DNA Exchange. Retrieved April 3 2022 fromhttps://thednaexchange.com/2021/05/13/not‐ready‐to‐make‐nice‐juggling‐unabashed‐advocacy‐and‐nsgcs‐insidious‐culture‐of‐nice/

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3