Examining genetic counselors' implicit attitudes toward disability

Disability training for genetic counseling students: The advocates' perspective

The genetics and disability communities have had a complicated relationship that is rooted in the history of the eugenics movement. Disability scholars claim that in order for healthcare professionals to provide optimal services to disabled patients, disability education must be implemented into healthcare training programs. No studies have explored the perspectives of disability advocates regarding the implementation and use of disability training in genetic counseling. This exploratory study recruited 13 advocates with lived experience of disability and genetic counseling exposure to participate in a semi-structured interview to share their recommendations for disability education opportunities in genetic counseling training programs and their perceived benefits of increased student exposure to disability. All advocates received genetic counseling themselves and four advocates reported working with genetic counselors in the advocacy setting. Advocates recounted their experiences working with genetic counselors, identifying qualities they deemed critical for effective counseling. All the advocates expressed interest in participating in experiential opportunities, with few concerns noted. The most frequently discussed recommendations for disability training included inviting advocates to speak in classrooms, and having students shadow disabled individuals. Advocates noted barriers to consider when implementing such educational opportunities, such as accessibility issues. Potential benefits of implementing disability education for students included providing students with a broader scope of knowledge and a deeper understanding of disability and resources available to the disability community. This novel study found that advocates are interested in participating in genetic counseling education, with recommendations on preferred experiential learning. By increasing a genetic counseling student's exposure to a disability, they may develop a comprehensive understanding of life with a disability, which may improve genetic counseling services to those with newly diagnosed disabilities.

Australasian genetic counselors' attitudes toward disability and prenatal testing: Findings from a cross-sectional survey

Diagnostic genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for conditions associated with disability are becoming increasingly available to consumers. This genetic information can be used in the disability setting to inform factors such as prognosis, management, and reproductive decision-making. Genetic counselors (GCs) play an important role in the provision of genetic testing and NIPT, and their attitudes toward disability can influence how genetic information is communicated and shape patients' responses. This study aimed to evaluate and describe Australasian GCs' experience with and attitudes toward disabilities to identify potential biases and training needs. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 400 GCs registered with the Human Genetics Society of Australasia. Of the 106 respondents (participation rate: 26%), a significantly greater proportion were more comfortable interacting with individuals with physical disability as compared to intellectual disability (p < 0.001). GCs with personal experiences with disabilities reported significantly greater comfort interacting with people with intellectual disability than those without experience (p = 0.012). Qualitative analysis revealed discomfort was less reflective of bias than inexperience and apprehension about communicating disrespectfully. GCs believed people with disabilities experience discrimination and that having a disability could make a person stronger, wiser, and more motivated. Most GCs viewed prenatal testing for disabilities positively as it allowed for decisions regarding continuing the pregnancy and/or provided opportunity to prepare. Challenges identified for prenatal counseling included negative societal attitudes and the low visibility of disability. GCs felt that 'personal beliefs' was the primary factor influencing the decision to terminate a pregnancy affected by disability. These findings highlight important education and training needs for GCs to improve preparedness and comfort when communicating with people with a disability.

Effects of Implicit Racial Bias and Standardized Patient Race on Genetic Counseling Students' Patient-Centered Communication

Clinician racial bias has been associated with less patient-centered communication, but little is known about how it affects trainees' communication. We investigated genetic counseling students' communication during sessions with Black or White standardized patients (SPs) and the extent to which communication was associated with SP race or student scores on the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT). Sixty students conducted a baseline SP session and up to two follow-up sessions. Students were randomly assigned to a different White or Black SP and one of three clinical scenarios for each session. Fifty-six students completed the IAT. Session recordings were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Linear regression models assessed the effects of IAT score and SP race on a variety of patient-centered communication indicators. Random intercept models assessed the within-student effects of SP race on communication outcomes during the baseline session and in follow-up sessions (n = 138). Students were predominantly White (71%). Forty students (71%) had IAT scores indicating some degree of pro-White implicit preference. Baseline sessions with White relative to Black SPs had higher patient-centeredness scores. Within-participant analyses indicate that students used a higher proportion of back-channels (a facilitative behavior that cues interest and encouragement) and conducted longer sessions with White relative to Black SPs. Students' stronger pro-White IAT scores were associated with using fewer other facilitative statements during sessions with White relative to Black SPs. Different patterns of communication associated with SP race and student IAT scores were found for students than those found in prior studies with experienced clinicians.

'Not seeing people as capable': Disability professionals' mis/understandings of ableism

BACKGROUND

Knowledge about how disability professionals understand ableism may provide insight into the production of inequalities. The aim of this study was to examine how disability professionals understand ableism.

METHODS

We asked 347 disability professionals, all of whom worked with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, among other populations, to define ableism and then analysed those definitions using content analysis.

RESULTS

The themes about how participants understood ableism were: discrimination; differential treatment; individualization; norms and othering; ableist language; microaggressions; and systems and environments. It was also not uncommon for participants to say ableist things, and express misconceptions in their definitions. This included these themes: avoiding disability; using ableist language; framing disability as in/ability; centring people without disabilities; ignoring invisible disabilities; believing only people without disabilities have bias; and believing ableism does not exist.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing disability professionals' understandings of ableism is necessary to intervene biased attitudes and reduce ableism.

Exploring Canadian genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with discussing medical assistance in dying (MAiD)

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) is the Canadian equivalent of Physician aid-in-dying (PAD) in the United States. Through changes to the eligibility criteria for MAiD in 2021, Canada now has one of the most permissive assisted dying regimens in the world. This study describes Canadian genetic counselors' experiences, knowledge, and preparedness to discuss MAiD with their patients. Survey responses were collected from Canadian genetic counselors (n = 44) and were followed by semi-structured interviews with 14 survey participants. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and interview transcripts were analyzed using phronetic iterative analysis and an interpretive description approach. Survey data revealed that genetic counselors have discussed MAiD with patients referred for cancer, neurologic, metabolic, connective tissue, and cardiac indications (n = 18, 40.9%). While most thought that it was important for genetic counselors to be knowledgeable of (n = 41, 93.2%) and prepared to discuss MAiD (n = 43, 97.7%), many were not familiar with the eligibility criteria (n = 27, 61.4%) and the process for accessing MAiD in Canada (n = 29, 65.9%). Interview participants described discussions about MAiD that were initiated by themselves or their patients. Most participants felt prepared to explore a patient's thoughts about MAiD when the patient initiated the discussion but did not feel well-prepared to share detailed information about MAiD. Participants were interested in education and professional guidance to assist them in preparing to discuss MAiD. Learning objectives were developed based on participants' suggestions to assist genetic counselors in their clinical work and self-directed research and to aid in the development of professional guidelines and educational materials for practicing genetic counselors and genetic counseling trainees. As genetic counselors continue engaging in discussions about MAiD, it is critical that these sensitive conversations are approached with increased knowledge and awareness of MAiD legislation, the ethical issues surrounding MAiD in Canada, and relevant patient resources.

Experiences of genetic counseling students with disabilities and chronic illnesses: A qualitative study

While many patients with disabilities or chronic illnesses are served by genetic counselors, little effort has been made to promote the inclusion of individuals with disabilities and chronic illnesses as professionals in the genetic counseling field. Genetic counselors with disabilities and chronic illnesses have reported insufficient support from their colleagues throughout all stages of their professional journeys, but there is a lack of research exploring these challenges. To gain an understanding of the experiences of this community during graduate training, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 recent graduates of genetic counseling programs who identify as having a disability or chronic illness. Questions explored various aspects of the graduate school experience including challenges, strengths, relationships, disclosure, and accommodations. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts resulted in six themes: (1) decisions around disclosure are complex, (2) interactions with others contribute to feeling misunderstood, (3) the high-performance culture in graduate programs makes it challenging to meet personal needs, (4) interpersonal relationships provide support, (5) the accommodation process is often disappointing, and (6) lived experiences are valuable to patients. This study reveals opportunities to better support genetic counseling students with disabilities and chronic illnesses through strengthening inclusion efforts, shifting away from ableist ideologies, and promoting more flexible training options.

Disability education and implications for genetic counselor training

The genetic counseling (GC) community has faced criticism about the duality of promoting patient autonomy while also advocating for individuals with disabilities. This study assessed the attitudes of the disability community and GCs to identify content that should be included in GC disability education and evaluate the landscape of GC disability education. Members of the disability community and GCs completed an electronic survey distributed through electronic listservs and partnering organizations. A total of 672 responses were analyzed from both the disability community (n = 596) and the GC community (n = 76). Members of the disability community noted differences in GC comfort level discussing different aspects of disability with GCs being perceived as being very knowledgeable about medical aspects 71% of the time versus 49% of the time when discussing social/lifestyle aspects of disability. This discordance was reflected in GCs reported comfort level in discussing medical aspects (89%) and social aspects of disability (65%) during a session. Most GC respondents (71%) felt they received adequate knowledge during their disability education and variation was reported in the execution of disability education by training programs. Disability education content recommendations from the disability community and GCs included emphasizing four key aspects of disability: medical, social/lifestyle, lived experience, and the disability rights movement. Respondents of both cohorts stressed the inclusion of and exposure to persons with disabilities in disability education to understand the lived experience of persons with disabilities. The disability community identified additional disability education content to be included such as empathy training, family hardships, and mental health. The results of this study have practice implications and provide a foundation for training expectations to ensure future GCs possess the necessary skills to improve the quality of services provided to families and persons with disabilities.

Explicit and implicit: Ableism of disability professionals

BACKGROUND

People who work with disabled people or whose work is about disability - disability professionals - often have direct power over disabled people and can impact their lives immensely; they also have a role in creating and institutionalizing knowledge about disability.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the explicit (conscious) and implicit (unconscious) disability attitudes of disability professionals.

METHODS

Between October 2021 and February 2023, disability professionals (n = 417) completed the Symbolic Ableism Scale (SAS) and the Disability Attitudes Implicit Association Test (DA-IAT). We had the following research questions: (1.) What are disability professionals' explicit attitudes towards disability? (2.) What are disability professionals' implicit attitudes towards disability? (3.) What is the relationship between disability professionals' explicit and implicit disability attitudes? and (4.) What sociodemographic factors correlate with disability professionals' explicit and implicit disability attitudes? We examined these questions using descriptive statistics, t-tests, a two-dimensional model of prejudice, and linear regression models.

RESULTS

In our sample, 77.24% of disability professionals preferred nondisabled people explicitly and 82.03% implicitly. Most commonly, disability professionals were symbolic ableists (37.8%). Race, political orientation, and job type correlated with disability professionals' explicit attitudes, while disability, gender, and job type correlated with their implicit attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

Ableism cannot be eradicated until disability professionals look inward and rid themselves of negative attitudes; until that occurs, disability professionals will continue to do a disservice to the very people they have dedicated their careers to - disabled people.

Unconscious Bias among Health Professionals: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Unconscious biases are one of the causes of health disparities. Health professionals have prejudices against patients due to their race, gender, or other factors without their conscious knowledge. This review aimed to provide an overview of research on unconscious bias among health professionals and to investigate the biases that exist in different regions of the world, the health professions that are considered, and the research gaps that still exist.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by systematically searching PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and AMED. All records were double-screened and included if they were published between 2011 and 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 5186 records were found. After removing duplicates (n = 300), screening titles and abstracts (n = 4210), and full-text screening (n = 695), 87 articles from 81 studies remained. Studies originated from North America (n = 60), Europe (n = 13), and the rest of the world (n = 6), and two studies were of global scope. Racial bias was investigated most frequently (n = 46), followed by gender bias (n = 11), weight bias (n = 10), socio-economic status bias (n = 9), and mental illness bias (n = 7). Most of the studies were conducted by physicians (n = 51) and nurses (n = 20). Other health care professionals were rarely included in these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies show that health professionals have an implicit bias. Racial biases among physicians and nurses in the USA are well confirmed. Research is missing on other biases from other regions and other health professions.

Diversity training experiences and factors associated with implicit racial bias among recent genetic counselor graduates of accredited programs in the United States and Canada

Implicit racial bias in healthcare settings can impact delivery of patient care. Exploration of this bias is necessary to improve patient experiences. We sought to understand implicit racial bias among graduates of accredited genetic counseling programs in the United States and Canada in the class of 2020 as they enter the genetics workforce and assess how this bias is associated with training and life experiences. Implicit racial bias was quantified through use of the Black-White Implicit Association Test (BW-IAT). Participants also completed an online survey focused on didactic and clinical training and personal experiences with diverse populations. Participants (n = 100) were majority White (88%), and 44% demonstrated an implicit bias favoring White individuals. Respondents reported a lack of interaction with Black healthcare professionals during their training. A concerning proportion (38%) reported experiencing or witnessing racial insensitivity perpetrated by genetic counselors or physicians in supervisory roles. Graduates reported diversity coursework as significantly less effective overall than other general genetic counseling coursework. This study reveals prevalence of implicit racial bias among genetic counselor graduates, lack of exposure to diverse populations within and outside of graduate training, and concerns regarding racial insensitivity and effectiveness of didactic and clinical genetic counseling training. Employers and program directors should implement revisions to ongoing training and graduate curriculum with consideration of these findings.

Explicit and implicit disability attitudes of occupational and physical therapy assistants

BACKGROUND

Reduction of explicit and implicit bias in healthcare providers is a critical issue faced by our society in moving toward more equitable and culturally appropriate health and rehabilitation care. Because resources for OT and PT services are limited and shortages in these professions exist, direct care provision by occupational and physical therapist assistants (OTA/PTA) is on the rise and valued in comprehensive rehabilitation practice. It is important to consider attitudes and biases of OTA/PTA, as they are directly involved in provision of rehabilitation services for people with disabilities.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the explicit and implicit disability attitudes of a large cross-section of OTA/PTA.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis was completed using data from 6113 OTA/PTA from the Project Implicit Disability Attitudes Implicit Association Test. Implicit attitudes were calculated and OTA/PTA explicit and implicit disability attitudes were compared. Results were further categorized using an adapted version of Son Hing et al.'s two-dimensional model of prejudice.

RESULTS

Findings revealed the majority of OTA/PTA reported having no explicit preference for people with disabilities or nondisabled people. However, the majority of OTA/PTA were aversive ableists, indicating low explicit and high implicit bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Though explicit bias is lower in OTA/PTA, implicit bias is strong, indicating that people with disabilities face bias that may influence clinical interactions, and may be reproduced in professional education, practice, and policy. Concrete action must be taken to recognize and address disability bias to reduce health disparities in people with disabilities.