| Title |
Effects of Genetic Counselor Self‐Disclosure: an Experimental Analog Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Genetic Counseling, December 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10897-018-0283-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brianna Volz, Kathleen D. Valverde, Steven J. Robbins |
| Abstract |
The complex nature of self-disclosure poses challenges for genetic counselors in clinical practice. We examined the impact of genetic counselor self-disclosure on observer perceptions of the counselor. In an online analog study, 123 participants watched a 3-minute video of a simulated genetic counseling session. For half the participants, the video showed the counselor disclosing that she had a family medical history similar to the patient (direct personal disclosure). For half the participants, the counselor revealed her experience with other patients (direct professional disclosure). Half the participants in each video condition read that the patient had discovered personal information about the counselor during a pre-session web search (indirect personal disclosure); half read that the patient learned of the counselor's FAQ webpage for prospective patients (indirect professional disclosure). Participants in the direct personal disclosure conditions gave higher ratings to the counseling relationship on an abbreviated version of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory and rated themselves more likely to see the counselor compared to those in the direct professional disclosure conditions. The content of the indirect disclosure conditions (personal or professional) had no effect. Brief, direct, verbal disclosure of session-relevant personal information by a genetic counselor appears to enhance the counselor-patient relationship and increase the likelihood of patients returning to the counselor. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 August 2020.
All research outputs
#16,047,881
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#781
of 1,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,282
of 445,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#28
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 445,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.