Premium
(Mis)alignments in Counseling for Huntington's Disease Predictive Testing: Clients’ Responses to Reflective Frames
Author(s) -
Sarangi Srikant,
Bennert Kristina,
Howell Lucy,
Clarke Angus,
Harper Peter,
Gray Jonathon
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of genetic counseling
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.867
H-Index - 52
eISSN - 1573-3599
pISSN - 1059-7700
DOI - 10.1007/s10897-005-1498-3
Subject(s) - genetic counseling , coping (psychology) , psychology , disease , coding (social sciences) , genetic testing , huntington's disease , applied psychology , social psychology , clinical psychology , medicine , pathology , genetics , sociology , social science , biology
As a sequel to an earlier paper (Sarangi et al. , 2004. J Genet Couns, 13(2), 135–155) examining genetic counselors’ initiation of reflective frames, in this paper we analyze the variable ways in which clients respond to such reflective frames in the clinical setting. Of the six types of reflective questions identified, we focus on two types, which recur throughout the counseling protocol: (i) questions about clients’ decisions to have genetic testing and (ii) questions exploring the potential impact of a positive or negative test result. The analytic focus here is on the mismatches surrounding clients’ apparent readiness to discuss coping with the onset of disease (risk of disease) when they have been asked to discuss coping with genetic test results (risk of knowing). Our theoretical discussion is centered around the notion of alignment as a framework for locating the convergence and divergence of counselors’ and clients’ agendas in interaction. Drawing on detailed transcripts of 24 Huntington's Disease counseling consultations in South Wales, we analyze 119 counselor–client question–response sequences using the methodology of discourse analysis. Preliminary coding of clients’ responses led us to identify three recurrent themes: (a) gaining knowledge as a basis for future action; (b) needing to know as a subjective necessity; and (c) downplaying what can be known. In a further analysis of extended data extracts, we draw attention to how clients display varying degrees of engagement with regard to the testing process and outcomes along the temporal and social axes. At one extreme, clients may take up the opportunity to engage in self‐reflection, and thus endorse the legitimacy of the reflective frame. At the other extreme, clients may implicitly or explicitly challenge the relevance of self‐reflection, and hence the usefulness of this counselor‐initiated routine. We suggest that clients’ varied response behaviors result from the perceived need of some clients to display their ‘readiness’ for predictive testing—an overarching ‘meta‐question’ posed by the very existence of the counseling protocol.