Exploring genetic counselors' experiences with non‐paternity in clinical settings.

Non‐paternity (NP) is a challenging dilemma faced by genetics providers and there is little consensus on whether this finding should be disclosed. Discussions in the literature are highly theoretical, with limited research regarding how disclosure decisions are enacted in practice. We explored genet...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Genetic Counseling Vol. 34; no. 1; pp. 1 - 14
Main Authors: Cunningham, Emma, Hays, Stephen, Wainstein, Tasha, Zierhut, Heather, Virani, Alice, Tryon, Rebecca
Format: research tables/charts Journal Article
Published: Wiley-Blackwell Feb2025
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=183983287&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 183983287
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10597700
        41A
      jtl: Journal of Genetic Counseling
      issn: 10597700
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2025
      vid: 34
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        183983287
        175275825
        183983287
        183983287
        10.1002/jgc4.1881
        183983287
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 13
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Exploring genetic counselors' experiences with non‐paternity in clinical settings.
      aug:
        au:
          Cunningham, Emma
          Hays, Stephen
          Wainstein, Tasha
          Zierhut, Heather
          Virani, Alice
          Tryon, Rebecca
        affil: Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver British Columbia,, Canada
      sug:
        subj:
          Paternity
          Genetic Counselors Psychosocial Factors
          Genetic Counselors Psychosocial Factors
          Work Experiences Evaluation
          Professional Practice
          Canada
          Human
          Male
          Female
          Adult
          Decision Making
          Semi-Structured Interview
          United States
          Thematic Analysis
          Patient Autonomy
          Clinical Laboratories
          Referral and Consultation
          Ethics
          Clinical Reasoning
          Harm Reduction
          Consent
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Male
          Female
      ab: Non‐paternity (NP) is a challenging dilemma faced by genetics providers and there is little consensus on whether this finding should be disclosed. Discussions in the literature are highly theoretical, with limited research regarding how disclosure decisions are enacted in practice. We explored genetic counselors' (GCs) clinical experiences with NP to understand if, how, and why this finding is communicated. Our semi‐structured interviews with genetic counselors in the United States and Canada were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to analyze data inductively, describe themes, and present a meaningful interpretation of the data. Eighteen participants who responded to list‐serv messages were interviewed. Our framework describes five salient themes: (1) GC‐lab relationship: the GCs awareness of laboratory processes such as quality control metrics that can uncover NP findings and the way in which a finding of NP was disclosed by the laboratory had an impact on disclosure decisions. This triggered a decision‐making trajectory that involved (2) consultation, (3) ethical reasoning, and (4) practical constraints. GCs frequently consulted other professionals during decision‐making. These conversations impacted disclosure decisions with some consultations carrying greater weight than others. GCs weighed moral concepts of patient autonomy, medical relevance, and preventing harm to rationalize decisions. Access to patients and documentation requirements often dictated how disclosure occurred. Finally, once a decision had been made and enacted, GCs used the experience to reconsider their approach to (5) consenting in future cases, with some GCs altering their pre‐test counseling to always include a discussion of NP. Although NP scenarios are frequently unique in context, our findings demonstrate several common decision‐making factors GCs harness to navigate the identification of NP through clinical genetic testing.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N