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.
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/