Genetic Counselors' attitudes & perceptions regarding suicide risk assessment and identification in practice

Emily Hershman; Sara Fernandes; Sophia Ceulemans; Dylan Platt

doi:10.1002/jgc4.1956

Genetic Counselors' attitudes & perceptions regarding suicide risk assessment and identification in practice

J Genet Couns. 2024 Aug 1. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1956. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Emily Hershman^{1

2}, Sara Fernandes³, Sophia Ceulemans⁴, Dylan Platt^{1

5

6}

Affiliations

¹ Genetic Counseling, Augustana University, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA.
² Phoenix Children's, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
³ LabCorp, Women's Health & Genetics, San Diego, California, USA.
⁴ Division of Genetics and Dysmorphology, Rady Children's Hospital, San Diego, California, USA.
⁵ Sanford Health, Genetics, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA.
⁶ University of South Dakota, Sanford School of Medicine, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA.

PMID: 39090055
DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1956

Abstract

While the heritability of suicidal tendencies is debated, receipt of various genetic diagnoses has shown an increased risk of suicidal ideation and behavior while simultaneously conferring risk to mental health concerns that may further increase this risk. However, the role of genetic counselors (GCs) in assessing and addressing suicide risk remains underutilized. A 15-item recruitment survey was distributed via the National Society of Genetic Counselors Student Research Survey Listserv, and interested individuals could opt to be contacted for an interview after completion. The data analysis included 107 survey responses and 15 semi-structured interviews, which were conducted to explore whether GCs feel that formal suicide risk assessment (SRA) falls within their scope of practice and the frequency with which it is employed during counseling sessions. Additionally, the study examined GCs' experiences, comfort levels, and training in assessing for suicide risk. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and independently coded by two researchers. The coding scheme was systematically constructed, integrating both deductive and inductive coding methods to inform the authors' interpretive description of SRA in the clinic, with four major themes identified by content analysis. Most respondents reported that they had worried about a patient harming themselves or having suicidal thoughts. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that SRA is within a GC's scope of practice. Lack of training emerged as the primary barrier to assessing suicide risk and conducting risk assessments. Other barriers included low self-efficacy, societal stigma, and personal discomfort, while access to social workers, natural inclination, and standardized screening tools served as facilitators. Despite encountering patients at risk of self-harm and suicide, most GCs do not utilize SRA tools. Furthermore, GCs expressed a strong desire for additional training to enhance their skills in identifying and managing at-risk patients. A multifocal approach to suicide risk reduction and education is required.

Keywords: education; genetic counseling; identification; risk assessment; suicide.