Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun;34(3):e70016.
doi: 10.1002/jgc4.70016.

Workplace perk or pitfall? A qualitative study of genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing

Collaborators, Affiliations

Workplace perk or pitfall? A qualitative study of genetic counselors' perspectives and experiences with workplace genetic testing

Elizabeth Charnysh et al. J Genet Couns. 2025 Jun.

Abstract

Some employers offer genetic testing for increased cancer and cardiovascular disease risk, as well as pharmacogenetic variants, as a wellness benefit, which presents unique considerations for genetic counseling. Our ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genomics study, positioned in a post-positivist paradigm, aimed to qualitatively assess the perspectives and experiences of genetic counselors (GCs) who had counseled on workplace genetic testing (wGT). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 US GCs who either worked in the wGT industry (i.e., role-directed wGT experience) or provided post-test counseling in a clinical setting (i.e., patient-directed wGT experience). Interviews were analyzed following the principles of codebook thematic analysis using a codebook developed from key domains from the interview guide and emergent themes that were identified during data collection. De-identified transcripts were double-coded. Both role-directed and patient-directed GCs recognized the potential benefits of wGT such as increasing access to genetic services and thereby improving health outcomes. However, patient-directed GCs had more concerns about the lack of access to follow-up care and increasing healthcare disparities. Role-directed GCs were generally more supportive of wGT and were more likely to endorse the benefits. Overall, both role- and patient-directed GCs emphasized the need for guardrails, particularly adequate pre- and post-test education, to mitigate potential harms of wGT, such as lack of informed decision-making, psychological distress, false reassurance, and decisional regret. GCs spontaneously drew parallels between wGT and population genomic screening efforts, noting that wGT similarly attempts to increase access to genetic testing for the general population. GCs' perspectives on strategies to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms of wGT may inform ELSI considerations when developing population genomic screening efforts and other programs that aim to expand access to genetic testing for the general population.

Keywords: consumer genetics; genetic counseling; genetic testing; population screening; qualitative research; workplace wellness programs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors Charnysh, Hendy, Ryan, Prince, Feero, Vogle, McCain, Truhlar, Roberts, Sanghavi, and Uhlmann have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
“Guardrails” on the “Road” of Workplace Genetic Testing (wGT). Genetic counselors (GCs) described guardrails to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms of wGT.

References

    1. ACMG Board of Directors . (2019). The use of ACMG secondary findings recommendations for general population screening: A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genetics in Medicine, 21(7), 1467–1468. 10.1038/s41436-019-0502-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bloss, C. S. , Wineinger, N. E. , Darst, B. F. , Schork, N. J. , & Topol, E. J. (2013). Impact of direct‐to‐consumer genomic testing at long term follow‐up. Journal of Medical Genetics, 50(6), 393–400. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101207 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blout Zawatsky, C. L. , Bick, D. , Bier, L. , Funke, B. , Lebo, M. , Lewis, K. L. , Orlova, E. , Qian, E. , Ryan, L. , Schwartz, M. L. B. , & Soper, E. R. (2023). Elective genomic testing: Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 32(2), 281–299. 10.1002/jgc4.1654 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bombard, Y. , Clausen, M. , Shickh, S. , Mighton, C. , Casalino, S. , Kim, T. H. , & Laupacis, A. (2020). Effectiveness of the genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: A randomized clinical trial. Genetics in Medicine, 22(4), 727–735. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brandt‐Rauf, P. W. , & Brandt‐Rauf, S. I. (2004). Genetic testing in the workplace: Ethical, legal, and social implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 139–153. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123012 - DOI - PubMed