Communication in Genetic Counseling: Cognitive and Emotional Processing

Abstract

The profession of genetic counseling has received limited guidance from theoretical models in how to communicate complex health information so that clients can actively use the information. In this study of a national sample of 145 genetic counselors conducting sessions with simulated clients, we apply two different approaches for analyzing and describing verbal health communication. The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS) and linguistic inquiry word count (LIWC) were used to identify evidence of communication behaviors consistent with tenets of the social cognitive processing model (SCPM). These tools revealed descriptive evidence of counselor facilitation of client emotional processing and, to a lesser extent, facilitation of client cognitive processing and understanding. Conversely, descriptive analysis of client communication revealed evidence of cognitive processing, but less affective processing. Second, we assessed whether genetic counselor facilitative communication predicted simulated client responses consistent with the cognitive and emotional processing inherent in SCPM. These analyses revealed that counselor attempts to promote emotional expression and client insight were positively associated with client word usage indicative of expression of negative affect and cognitive processing. This study is the first to our knowledge to apply RIAS and LIWC in tandem and gives us a description of current practices within genetic counseling within a theoretical framework. Additionally, it provides suggestions for education and communication goals to improve providers' responses to patient emotions as well as skills to engender patient understanding and personal meaning-making of complex medical information.

Notes

¹Simulated clients were told only that we were studying the process of genetic counseling. For details on simulation training, please see Roter, Ellington, Hamby Erby, Larson, and Dudley (2006).

²For a detailed description of the parent study, please see Roter et al. (2006).