| Title |
Movement of Genetic Counselors from Clinical to Non‐clinical Positions: Identifying Driving Forces
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Genetic Counseling, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10897-018-0242-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie A. Cohen, Megan E. Tucker |
| Abstract |
A previous study of genetic counselors (GCs) in the state of Indiana identified movement out of clinical positions within the past 2 years. The aims of this study were to determine if this trend is nationwide and identify reasons why GCs are leaving their positions and factors that might help employers attract and retain GCs. An email was sent to members of the American Board of Genetic Counseling with a link to an online confidential survey. There were 939 responses (23.5% response rate). Overall, 52% of GCs report being highly satisfied in their current position, although almost two thirds think about leaving and one third had changed jobs within the past 2 years. Of those who had changed jobs (n = 295), 74.9% had been working in a hospital/clinic setting but only 46.3% currently do, demonstrating a major shift out of the clinic (p < 0.001). The top three reasons cited for leaving a position were work environment/institutional climate, salary/benefits, and a lack of feeling valued/recognized as a professional. These results confirm that GCs are moving out of clinical positions and document elements of job satisfaction. We suggest points for employers to consider when trying to recruit or retain GCs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 43% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 25% |
| Psychology | 3 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,367,146
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#99
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,049
of 332,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#9
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.