Characterizing the research mentorship experience of genetic counseling students

The Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling's Practice‐Based Competencies include research‐related skills, which are taught in master's level genetic counseling programs through didactic coursework and completion of mentored research experiences. It is known that research mentors can impact student work environments, create positive perceptions of the research process, and increase students' likelihood of future involvement in research. However, few studies have characterized the experiences of GC students in receiving research mentorship. It is crucial to understand these experiences from student perspectives to better inform stakeholders about factors that impact mentorship. Using a mixed‐methods approach, this study explored GC students' experiences receiving research mentorship and their thoughts regarding the successful qualities of research mentors. GC students (N = 165) who graduated between 2019 and 2022 responded to an online survey measuring the mentorship relationship, defined by the Advisory Working Alliance Inventory (AWAI). On average, participants scored 3.96/5 on the AWAI, where higher scores indicate stronger working alliances. When asked to describe their overall research experience in three words, 75.7% of participants used at least one negatively connotated descriptor. Thematic analysis of semi‐structured interviews obtained via purposive sampling of highest and lowest scoring participants on the AWAI (N = 14) revealed the following five themes related to successful qualities of a research mentor: (1) communication; (2) rapport building and relationship; (3) engagement and guidance; (4) expertise and connections; and (5) mentors with different roles. Of note, many of these qualities are foundational skills in genetic counseling. Thus, genetic counselors who may be strong in these areas who do not identify as “researchers” ought to consider becoming a research committee member. Additionally, education programs could consider implementing research committee member evaluations and/or student research self‐efficacy surveys to evaluate how these relationships may be shaping research experiences for students within their program.

In a qualitative study of genetic counseling students' experiences in publishing a master's thesis in a scientific journal, mentorship was a common theme that impacted a student's ability to publish (Resta et al., 2010).However, this study was limited as it assessed only three students' experiences and did not review the impacts of mentorship on those who did not publish their research (Resta et al., 2010).In addition to didactic coursework, GC programs may rely on research mentors to disseminate the knowledge required to achieve competency in the research-related PBCs.Thus, it is important to explore the research mentorship experience of this student population.
To our knowledge, no study has examined the research mentormentee relationship in genetic counseling graduate programs.A tool that has been validated and used in previous studies to explore advisory relationships includes the Advisory Working Alliance Inventory (AWAI) (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001).The working alliance in advisory relationships represents the relationship built between an advisor and advisee when working towards a common goal (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001).This tool allows researchers to measure the graduate advising relationship from the student's perspective (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001).The measure was first developed for use in counseling psychology graduate students.However, an important distinction between research relationships in counseling psychology and genetic counseling is the role of the research advisor.In counseling psychology programs, the advisor has the greatest responsibility for supporting the student through the program, which may or may not be the case for genetic counseling students who may have a faculty advisor who is not involved in their research project.The AWAI can

What is known about this topic
The Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling includes

What this paper adds to the topic
Current and recently graduated genetic counseling students perceive that communication, rapport building and relationship, engagement and guidance, expertise and connections, and mentors with different roles are important qualities for people who serve on student research committees.Given that these traits can be elicited from genetic counselors with or without research experience, this demonstrates that prior research mentorship experience may not be the only major feature of a successful research mentor and provides guidance for the development of research mentorship training for genetic counselors and others serving in these roles.
be modified to better reflect the nature of research relationships in genetic counseling by shifting the focus from research advisor to research mentor.
With Practice-Based Competencies dedicated to research, it is crucial to define the experience of genetic counseling students in research to better guide how research mentorship is designed and implemented for this student population.Therefore, the purpose of the current project is to investigate genetic counseling students' experiences with their research mentor and the ideal qualities of mentor-mentee relationships.The results of this study can be used in the future to help guide genetic counselor self-identification of whether they are "fit" to consider being on a research committee as well as educational programs in integrating deliberate research committee composition, mentor training programs, and mentor evaluations in their research model.This may increase research outcomes for genetic counseling students, facilitate a more positive experience for both the mentor and the mentee, and encourage genetic counselors to be more active in research mentorship roles for students.

| ME THODS
We employed a mixed-methods strategy consisting of a quantitative survey using a validated measure and qualitative interviews with currently enrolled or recently graduated genetic counseling students.Capitalizing on the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods provided a greater enrichment of breadth and depth in this study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).The University of Nebraska Medical Center Institutional Review Board determined this study to be exempt (IRB#415-21-EX).

| Instrumentation
A quantitative survey tool was administered to assess respondents' experiences with their research mentor (Appendix S1).Study data were collected and managed using REDCap version 11.2.4 electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (Harris et al., 2009(Harris et al., , 2019)).REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies, providing automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages and procedures for data integration and interoperability with external sources.
A previously validated scale, the Advisory Working Alliance Inventory (AWAI), was adapted for use in this questionnaire to measure the genetic counseling students' perspective of the graduate research advising relationship (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001).This scale includes 30 items, which characterizes three different aspects of the mentor-mentee relationship: rapport (11 items), apprenticeship (14 items), and identification-individuation (5 items).The AWAI measure was altered to include the word "mentor" instead of "advisor", as this study was concerned with students' research mentors rather than program advisors.The original instrument defined an advisor as "the faculty member who has the greatest responsibility for helping guide the advisee through the graduate program" (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001).They did not select the term mentor due to concerns of possible positive connotations that would restrict the range of positive and negative responses.As there is often much overlap for GC students in their interactions with a potential GC mentor (e.g.clinic and research), we felt mentor was a more appropriate term to use to describe this relationship for students since mentors often provide broad guidance.Thus, we felt it was appropriate to use the term mentor to allow students to identify who they felt had the most impact on their research education and further explore what qualities GC students want in a research mentor.Students were prompted to answer all portions of the survey when thinking about the person they identified as their primary research mentor during their GC graduate program.This represents the person most responsible for teaching the students about research in the GC field and helping them work toward the completion of their research experience.
The quantitative survey was piloted with three genetic counselors who did not fit the recruitment criteria.Their data was not used in the analysis.As in the original study, all 30 items were scored on a Likert scale, with one representing strongly disagree and five representing strongly agree.Two rapport items and 11 apprenticeship items were reverse coded, and scores were reordered before summarizing.Respondents were removed from the analysis if they did not respond to at least 27 of the 30 items, and the count of non-missing items per respondent is included in Table S1.An individual's final mentorship score was calculated by taking the mean per item of all the responses to the items on the AWAI representing the overall quality of the relationship (Kivlighan et al., 2019;Rice et al., 2016).
Responses on the AWAI were analyzed following dissemination to determine numerical thresholds for what were defined as stronger mentorship experiences, as this had not been previously defined for this tool.Based on the patterns of these scores and the standard deviation, weaker relationships were defined as scores <3.30, neutral relationships as between 3.30 and 4.61, and stronger relationships as >4.61.
Follow-up qualitative interviews were performed to capture student perceptions of the research mentorship experience in more depth and identify the desired qualities of research mentors.
Selection for the follow-up interviews was determined via a criterion-I purposeful sampling strategy (Palinkas et al., 2015).This allowed for the identification of cases that were information-rich and varied in their experiences with mentorship, which increased the depth of this study's findings.Individuals with the highest or lowest scores on the AWAI were invited to participate in the qualitative interviews first, working towards the average score until saturation was achieved.
A semi-structured interview guide was developed by a team that included a genetic counseling intern (HS), a genetic counselor who is a Research Course Director (KF), and a Director of Curriculum and Assessment for the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Allied Health (SM) (Appendix S2).Questions were drawn from the experiences of the research team and were designed to further explain participants' responses on the AWAI, including how the mentor-mentee relationship was affected by what the student described as qualities of their mentor.Following the first two interviews, the semi-structured interview guide was reevaluated by the research team, which resulted in changes to the wording of some questions and the addition of questions to expand interesting points that became apparent as the interviews progressed.Participants were informed that their responses would be linked to an identifier and that their affiliated institution and the name of their mentor would be kept confidential.Interviews lasted between 18 and 38 minutes.After the interview completion, participants received a $10 Visa card for their participation.

| Data analysis
Descriptive statistics, including averages and standard deviations, Interview audio recordings were transcribed verbatim via Descript, read and checked for accuracy, and any identifying information was removed.Transcripts were not returned to participants for comment or correction.Transcripts were uploaded to QDA Miner Lite for coding by a member of the research team (HS).The qualitative interviews were analyzed via descriptive coding for inductive and deductive themes (Saldaña, 2013).Twelve initial codes, representing four themes, to describe the data were defined by the principal investigator based on existing literature in research mentorship.New codes were developed using thematic analysis for repeated patterns across the entire data set, and themes were refined in an iterative analytic process.A second member of the research team (SM) coded the same interview transcripts independently using a similar approach.Subsequently, both investigators reviewed the coded data together to ensure integrity and resolve any discrepancies.In order to reach saturation, 14 participants were interviewed, and no new themes emerged in the final two interviews (MacFarlane et al., 2014).The research team agreed at the end of the analysis that all themes were consistently represented across interviews.The final qualitative analysis yielded five final themes and 14 subthemes.
Based on these themes and subthemes generated during the qualitative analysis, a checklist for mentors was built for each of the characteristics of a successful mentor-mentee relationship (Figure 1).
The PI chose representative quotes from the qualitative interviews to demonstrate each action item on the checklist.

| Demographic characteristics
The majority of survey respondents identified as a woman (96.4%) with a white racial identity (92.1%).This is fairly consistent with the makeup of the NSGC membership in 2022, which reported 93% of members identifying as a woman and 89% identifying as white (NSGC PSS, 2022).About half (54.5%) of respondents were current students enrolled in a genetic counseling program while the remaining 45.5% graduated within the past 3 years (10.3% graduated in 2019, 17.0% in 2020, and 18.2% in 2021).Most participants who responded to the survey were in the process of or completed a "thesis" as opposed to a "capstone" or "research project."The demographic characteristics of the 165 respondents who completed the survey are summarized in Table 1.
The majority of participants (75.2%) had some research experience before starting their program (Table 1).Many (51.5%) participants had between one and 3 years of previous research experience.
Of all participants, 4.2% had previously completed a Ph.D. or other research-based degree, 9.1% had participated in graduate-level research, and 67.3% had participated in undergraduate-level research.
Other research experiences identified by 29 participants included employment before starting graduate school for genetic counseling.
Of the total participants, 28.5% of respondents were included as an author on a published manuscript, 29.7% presented an oral abstract, and 50.9% presented a research poster.
Most participants (91.5%) identified their primary research mentor as a person on their research committee (Table 1).Those whose

| Strength of the relationship with the primary research mentor
The average scores on the adapted AWAI ranged from 1.83 to 5.00 (Table 2) with the majority of students scoring greater than four (Figure S1).No statistically significant differences were present between respondents who were currently enrolled and respondents who had already graduated.

| Demographic characteristics
A total of 88 respondents indicated they would be open to followup contact for the qualitative interview.A total of 30 participants who represented a variety of experiences were contacted with an invitation to complete the interview, and 14 participated.The demographic characteristics of the 14 interview respondents are seen in Table 4.
The data from the interviews revealed five themes: communication between the mentor and the mentee, rapport building and relationship, the level of engagement and guidance, the expertise and connections the mentor has or builds, and the potential impact of mentors who have different roles for the student.Representative quotes for each theme are included in Figure 1 as well as Table S2.

| Theme 1: Communication
Respondents frequently reported open communication as an ideal character trait to find in a research mentor (9/14, 64%).Additionally, communication was often identified as an area in which the mentorship relationship could be improved, even among students who responded with high scores on the AWAI (9/14, 64%).In participants who responded with lower scores on the AWAI, their mentor was not involved and/or not on the same page as the student (4/7, 57%).
Students value prompt responses as well as setting up clear expectations for communication, such as timelines of feedback, discussion about the most appropriate communication method, and the frequency of meetings.

| Theme 2: Rapport building and relationship
Respondents also emphasized the importance of establishing a personal connection in forming a working mentor-mentee relationship.
The absence of a personal connection was identified as a negative feature for respondents who responded with lower scores on the AWAI (4/7, 57%).Furthermore, attempts to establish a personal connection between the mentor and the mentee were reported as an ideal mentor trait in 64% of all participants.Suggested strategies for improving personal connection include the mentor being more approachable (5/14, 36%) and viewing their student as a whole person (4/14, 29%).When participants felt like they did not feel comfortable approaching their mentor with their concerns, the overall perceived compatibility of the relationship decreased.Note: Answers to items on the quantitative survey were tracked for participants who consented to the follow-up interviews.Participants were selected based on their average AWAI score.

| Theme 3: Engagement and guidance
Another frequently reported trait that detracts from the mentormentee relationship is not providing the mentee enough guidance (5/7, 71%).Mentor improvement suggestions from a variety of participants centered on their mentor being more involved (7/14, 50%), adjusting depending on the needs of the individual mentee (7/14, 50%), helping the mentee stay within the scope of their project or timeline (5/14, 36%), showing that they are invested in supervising (4/14, 29%), and sharing excitement for the topic of the project (2/14, 14%).

| Theme 4: Expertise and connections
Participants valued expertise and connections as a desirable mentor trait (11/14, 79%).Even if the research mentor did not have an answer to the student's question or problem, it was important to students that the mentor attempts to connect them to someone who could.

| Theme 5: Mentors with different roles
Students reported possible complications for mentors who have differences in the roles they fill.If a mentor fills more than one role in the program for the student (e.g., clinical supervisor and research mentor), this may complicate the research mentor-mentee relationship (5/14, 21%).Additionally, some participants mentioned their experience may have been less stressful if their mentor had been a genetic counselor or known more about genetic counseling (3/14, 21%).

| DISCUSS ION
The results from this study indicate that there are specific qualities of a mentor-mentee relationship that relate to genetic coun- search is or is not integrated into the curriculum (Jacobs et al., 2022).
Targeting these factors that are outside of mentor qualities could help educational programs ameliorate some of the factors leading to overall negative experiences and would support both the mentors and students.
Additionally, it may be helpful for program faculty or mentors to set clear expectations around requirements for the research experience and ensure the student is not pursuing a project that is outside the scope of the program or not feasible to complete within the time constraints of graduation.Setting clearer expectations overlaps with several of the main forms of negative mentoring proposed by Limeri et al. including absenteeism, abuse of power, lack of support, and misaligned expectations (Limeri et al., 2019).Showing the mentee that the mentor is invested in the mentee's skill development and excited about the project can increase perceptions of involvement and positive guidance.
As a mentor, recognizing and adjusting the level of guidance necessary for working with a mentee is crucial to a strong mentor-mentee relationship.Some students need and want more direct guidance than others.In this study, some students valued the level of autonomy their mentor gave them while others wished their mentor were more involved in their project.Some moderators of these outcomes could be a student's experiences prior to entering their genetic counseling program or their interest in research prior to starting their project.
Therefore, it is necessary to promote conversation among the mentor-mentee pair to guide assessment on the desired level of involvement from the mentor, and for this conversation to be revisited to facilitate adjustment of these roles over the course of the project.
Another quality that students identified as ideal to find in a research mentor is a strong interpersonal connection.Not taking time to get to know the student or ask about a student's life outside of research can create an atmosphere of separateness between the mentor and the mentee.In addition, sharing personal details can encourage the student to become excited and invested in the research process as well as increase comfort in reaching out to address concerns.The importance of building a personal relationship was similarly found in a systematic review on the characteristics of mentoring; actions such as tracking the personal and professional issues of the mentee, providing moral support, and expressing emotions and vulnerability all contribute to building a strong interpersonal connection (Sambunjak et al., 2010).
Open communication between the mentor and the mentee was regarded as a positive trait by participants.All students (regardless of their AWAI score) identified communication as an area for improvement.Lack of communication about the desired level of involvement and goals for the project contributed to feelings of reported stress in the mentee.These ideal qualities of clear expectations and communication have also been observed previously in the literature in studies on other populations of healthcare students (Shah et al., 2011).If communication is not open between the mentor and mentee, this can lead to frustration and confusion about the direction of a project and detract from the relationship.Incorporating regular opportunities for the mentor and mentee to discuss the mentee's needs and desires may increase openness and provide the mentee a venue for identifying the desired level of involvement from the mentor, challenges in the research process, and other life stressors and celebrations.
Most students desired mentors with expertise in their research topic or in the research process itself.However, equally valuable to participants was a mentor's willingness to seek out connections to experts when needed.This finding was similar to Sambunjak et al.'s assertion that the role of the mentor is to help with navigating the institution and provide connections and networking (Sambunjak et al., 2010).Mentees do not expect their mentor to be all-knowing, but instead would like them to build relationships and aid in troubleshooting problems.(Clark et al., 2006).These promising rates of engagement exist even though there are reports that genetic counselors have minimal time to spend completing research-related activities (Attard et al., 2019;Dragojlovic et al., 2020).Although most students identified their primary research mentor as either a genetic counselor or someone associated with their genetic counseling program, there were students who reported having a research mentor who was not fully aware of the profession of a genetic counselor.Students reported having to advocate for the profession as well as taking charge of bridging the gap between the non-genetics mentor and the requirements of the program.In these ways, unfamiliarity with genetic counseling hindered the mentor-mentee relationship.This suggests that it may be ideal if the mentor is a genetic counselor.However, genetic counseling education programs that struggle to identify GC mentors should consider identifying individuals outside the GC profession who embody the skills desired by research mentees, and in doing so should ensure adequate resources for the non-GC committee members are available.
Participants of the qualitative interviews identified conflicting feelings about their mentor when that individual held a mentorship role in more than one setting.For example, one student did not have a good relationship with their mentor in the context of research but identified with wanting to be like that mentor in their clinical role.Role ambiguity has previously been identified to negatively impact research experiences (Yousefi et al., 2015), and multiple role conflicts should be reduced by defining appropriate boundaries of those roles and avoiding multiple roles if possible (Uhlmann et al., 2009).However, due to the potentially limited availability of clinic supervisors and research mentors, there are times when it will be impossible to completely avoid the overlap.Some potential strategies to mitigate the complexity of dual roles include reflecting on potential power imbalances created by having such a large impact on the student's career and clarifying boundaries at the onset of each new relationship (Warren, 2005).
Previous guidelines have been proposed for maintaining clear boundaries between mentors and mentees, such as allowing students to withdraw from a mentoring relationship without retribution, clarifying the boundaries of the relationship at the onset, or consulting with colleagues to receive feedback on mentoring (Welfel, 1998).Additionally, a second mentor can be sought outside of the genetic counseling program, such as research faculty at the same institution or outside institutions or a genetic counselor at an outside institution.Data specifically regarding a positive experience with a dual-role mentor was not mentioned by the participants of this study.
The five themes identified in this study can be used to help guide genetic counselor self-identification of whether they are "fit" to consider being on a research committee and can be used by program leaders to identify individuals they would like to recruit to serve on research committees.Several skillsets of successful research mentors put forward by this study overlap with basic skillsets used in a clinical setting.For example, genetic counselors communicate complex information, build rapport, adjust their level of engagement, share expertise, and collaborate in a variety of ways with their patients and other healthcare providers.

| Study limitations
The generalizability of the results is limited by recall bias for respondents who graduated in 2020 and 2019 who may be further removed from their graduate experience.The participants who graduated in 2022 were currently going through their research experience at the time of the interviews; this also may have introduced bias into the data as positive or negative feelings may have been more acutely experienced.Additionally, the method used to invite participants who had already graduated from their genetic counseling program (e.g. graduates in 2019-2021) may have excluded eligible participants if they are not associated with the NSGC listserv.
When asked about their interest in pursuing research in their genetic counseling careers, 42.5% of respondents indicated they had an interest in integrating research into their future careers.This is consistent with prior literature reporting a similar level of interest among students (Bedard et al., 2007).However, a lower rate of current participation in research at 42.2% was reported in this study which contrasts with the findings of Clark et al., in which 84.5% of genetic counselors participated in some form of research (Clark et al., 2006).
This discrepancy could be due to the relatively recent graduation date for the cohorts sampled in this study compared to the broader co-

| Practice implications
The research educational requirements for genetic counseling students mean it is crucial to improve the research experience for learners.There are shared strategies mentees, mentors, and programs can undertake to address the responsibility of positively influencing the research experience.Mentorship workshops, webinars, and/ or training programs specifically for genetic counselors interested in serving as research mentors could be developed that target the specific characteristics students value in their mentors, such as communication, interpersonal connection, and appropriate guidance.
Several students reported in the qualitative data that their mentor was already displaying actions related to the themes identified in this study.Given that these traits can be elicited from genetic coun-  et al., 2015).Genetic counseling research committees or curriculums could be designed in such a way that students have at least two primary research mentors from whom to seek support, one of whom is not in a dual role for that student (e.g., supervisor and committee chair).Drawing from other faculty across institutions and/or at the academic institution that hosts the program can allow genetic counseling programs to expand the pool of possible committee members.
Experts in other related fields can also serve as good mentors, provide another perspective, and relieve workload and role confusion.
However, this should be balanced with guidance from the program and a committee that includes at least one genetic counselor.The results of this study could be used as a platform for more research into how the research experience is evaluated for students.

| Future directions
To our knowledge, there have only been tools established to assess genetic counseling students' competencies in their clinical skills and not in their understanding of the research process (Caldwell et al., 2018).Clinical supervisors can rely on this tool, the Genetic Counseling Self-Efficacy Scale, to guide training of students.A tool that could similarly assess research-related PBCs for genetic counseling students could be beneficial to research mentors and GC programs.
Additionally, the same cohort of students could be followed to Practice-Based Competencies related to research.Genetic counseling students receive this training through didactic coursework and a mentored research experience.Research mentors can impact students' work environment, create positive perceptions of the research process, and increase students' likelihood of future involvement in research.
from an accredited genetic counseling program in the United States or Canada.At the time of this study, the participants from the class of 2022 were currently enrolled in their program.Invitations to participate in the study were distributed through the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) listserv and the Association of Genetic Counseling Program Directors (AGCPD) listserv.After three weeks, a reminder with the survey link was redistributed through both listservs.The quantitative survey included an opportunity for participants to provide their contact information if they were interested in participating in followup qualitative interviews.
Qualitative interviews were conducted remotely between September 2021 and October 2021 by a single female interviewer (HS), a genetic counseling student with prior training in qualitative interviewing.Participants did not know the interviewer before the study was conducted but were aware of the interviewer's reasons and interest in the research topic.With participant consent, interview audio and video were recorded via Zoom, a secure web conferencing platform, with only the interviewer and participant present.
were utilized to analyze quantitative responses to demographics.Correlation coefficients were used to analyze the association between mentorship scores and time spent on research.The University of Nebraska Medical Center for Collaboration on Research Design and Analysis (CCORDA) provided statistical analysis support for the quantitative survey data.

F□□□□□
I G U R E 1 Actions to Promote Successful Research Mentorship Relationships for Genetic Counselors.A checklist with suggestions of strategies to promote successful research mentorship relationships for genetic counselors who serve or are interested in serving as research mentors.Representative quotes from participants are presented for each suggested action.Let the student know you are approachable "It didn't feel like a mentor that I was comfortable going to and talking to about the stress I was feeling" □ View the student as a whole person "I know asking me about my life has absolutely nothing to do with her life, but like, it's really nice.I feel like she really cares" □ Share your own interests (research and others) "I would love to hear more about her research and about her particular interests" Determine pre-set check-in or meeting times "She didn't really encourage me to touch base...and establish those meetings" Communicate in a timely manner "I'm literally waiting on you to say yes or to say no... so that was kind of frustrating" Encourage in-person meetings if feasible "A lot of the communication might have been there if we had in-person meetings or more regular contact" □ Help define expectations "There was not a lot of guidance and that's also like a general theme in my program" Adjust based on the student's experiences "[Being] flexible to take into account what the students' experiences are and how much guidance they're going to need" □ Share excitement for the student's topic or project and in supervising "Sharing your personal passions can really promote excitement in your student" □ Suggest contacts/resources and facilitate connections "If they don't [have expertise about research], the willingness to find out and help guide the student" □ Share the expertise you do have "Have that quality of...wanting to share [knowledge]" □ Guide the student through barriers "Even when there was a challenge or a barrier, my mentor...had some ideas...to address those" □ Recognize the impact of your dual roles "If we're talking about not her as a whole, but just specifically related to research, I don't think that the rapport is great" -Participant 2 □ Structure the committee to include genetic counselors and non-genetic counselors "I don't know how she got roped into the role because she just didn't really know what genetic counseling was...I felt like I was often getting her up to speed" AcƟons to Promote Successful Research Mentorship RelaƟonships for GeneƟc Counselors 1 1 Quotes provided above were generated during interviews during the qualitative portion of the following study: Steber, Fishler, & McBrien (2022).Characterizing the research mentorship experience of genetic counseling students.primary research mentor was not a member of their committee identified specific roles such as a thesis or academic advisor (n = 4), non-genetics faculty (n = 3), the research curriculum director (n = 2), the program director (n = 1), a physician (n = 1), or an assistant program director (n = 1).Two respondents did not have a committee at the point of survey completion.Most research mentors were associated with the genetic counseling program in some form, and some mentors filled more than one role.Other roles identified for research mentors included associate directors of relevant organizations, academic advisors, and other health sciences professionals.
3.1.3| Views of the overall research experienceParticipants were prompted in an open-ended response to reflect on three words they associated with their overall research experience.In describing their overall experiences, 16.9% of respondents used three positively connotated descriptors in describing their experience while 30.4% used three negatively connotated descriptors in describing their experience.Most (45.3%) participants used both negatively and positively connotated descriptors to describe their experience ( research in some form.Of those who have participated in research since graduation, the majority (75.6%) spend less than 10% of their time performing research-related actions.Comparisons were drawn between the scores on the AWAI and interest in performing research based on the time ideally spent on research (graduates of 2021 and 2022) or the current time spent on research-related activities (graduates of 2019 and 2020).There is a weak positive association between the mentor-mentee relationship and time ideally spent on research (r = 0.2092, p value = 0.0224).There is a weak positive association between the mentor-mentee relationship and time currently spent on research (r = 0.2425, p value = 0.1128).
seling students describing the experience as negative or positive, which provides guidance for the development of research mentorship training for genetic counselors and others serving in these roles.These results suggest that there are actions that can be taken by the programs themselves related to structuring the research curriculum to improve the experience as well as specific actions related to the five qualitative themes generated in this study that can be taken by mentors to improve the research mentorship relationship.Additionally, these results can be used by GC research mentors to guide reflection on their current mentorship strengths and areas in which they can seek additional training or guidance to improve.When asked to describe the research experience in three words, most students included descriptors related to the difficulty level, the structure of the experience, the time it took to complete the project, and how the project made them feel.Thus, these features could be additional areas for genetic counseling programs to focus on in positively influencing the research experience.The structure of the experience includes factors like the specific guidelines and requirements published by the program itself as well as how educational outcomes related to the research experience are taught and implemented by both the mentor specifically and the program more broadly.Similar logistical factors were identified as barriers in a cohort of medical students, including time restraints and how re- Currently, only 50% of respondents in the 2022 Professional Status Survey (PSS) released by the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) report involvement in research activities (NSGC PSS, 2022).The results of these previous studies along with the qualitative themes presented here may empower current GCs who do not currently identify as a researcher to become involved in student research projects.They should seek out support and professional development resources from their institution or national organizations like the National Society of Genetic Counselors (2022).
hort sampled in Clark et al.Additionally, this study may have captured fewer responses from students who view their research experience negatively because they have self-selected out of research in their career, may feel emotional distress by discussing their experience, or fear retribution for sharing a negative experience.Additionally, while this study lacks perspectives from a diverse body of respondents that are not representative of the general population, participant demographics mirrored demographics of the profession's national professional organization.We did not target a particular demographic to increase the diversity of the population represented in this study.The reliability of this data is impacted by potential confounding factors such as instances where a student's research mentor holds more than one role for the student.Rankings on the AWAI, such as those items related to rapport, may be impacted if the student is thinking of other contexts outside of research in which the mentor is involved.The determination of stronger versus weaker mentorship relationships were based on this study alone.Additionally, it is beyond the scope of this study to assess how the perceptions of the same group of genetic counseling students change over time or how past or current research experiences of students impact their relationship with their research mentor as the specific topic category or methodologies of the research experience was not gathered by this study.
Specific qualities of a genetic counseling student and faculty member research mentor-mentee relationship, such as communication, personal connection, the level of guidance, and expertise, are beneficial qualities genetic counseling students look for in a positive experience with their mentors.Since these qualities are foundational to the profession, genetic counselors who would otherwise not identify as a researcher ought to consider their strengths and abilities in this potential role.Genetic counseling training programs can use the results of this study to better inform the development of research committee member growth and mentorship relationships, provide opportunities for targeted discussion/education about research mentorship, as well as guide integration of research-related Practice-Based Competencies into genetic counseling graduate education.

Further
research is needed to investigate other factors that may impact the overall research experience of genetic counseling students beyond the scope of mentorship, including the structure of the research curriculum, the impact of comparison between classmates, time, and previous research experience.Genetic counseling programs implement various strategies for structuring the research requirements, and more exploration could be done into the effects of a capstone compared to a formal thesis.Most participants mentioned their cohort having an impact on their overall research experience, whether that be with a positive or a negative connotation.Another stressor participants identified in the research process was limited time, demonstrating opportunities to further identify what projects are most feasible during a student's master's program.Most genetic counseling students enter their graduate-level training with some form of prior research experience.This may inform their perceptions of genetic counseling research as preconceived notions of research may influence their current experience.Additionally, the weak association between the strength of the mentorship relationship and the research interest could be further explored in this population, especially in light of studies in other student populations that propose positive mentorship increases students' likelihood of pursuing research as part of their future career.
assess how the relationship with the mentor and views of the overall research experience change throughout the progression of the graduate experience.Finally, this study gathered opinions only from genetic counseling students.It would also be beneficial to assess the perspectives of the research curriculum directors or research mentors regarding the research experience to inform the optimal integration of research-related Practice-Based Competencies into curriculum and training for research mentors.

Table 3
Demographic characteristics of quantitative survey respondents.Distributions of participants' Advisory Working Alliance Inventory (AWAI) subscale and cumulative scores.Participants' scores on the AWAI were analyzed using descriptive statistics for each subscale and the combined score.Overall, participants had relatively high scores on the AWAI.When looking at each subscale, participants had the lowest feelings of apprenticeship with their mentors and the highest feelings of rapport.Overall research experiences of genetic counseling students.Participants answered the question "Please describe your research experience during your genetic counseling program in three words".Participants' words were coded into three categories related to connotation and four categories related to factors outside of mentorship.Representative answers to this item are provided for each category.
).The words used to describe participants' views of the overall research experience were related to four factors outside of mentorship: (1) how the project made them feel TA B L E 1 Respondents were asked to indicate on two 0-100 visual analog scales, "Ideally, how much time would you want to spend pursuing already graduated in 2019 or 2020.Of participants who graduated in 2021 or 2022, 47.5% were not interested in pursuing research in their genetic counseling career, 42.5% were interested, and 10.0% had neutral feelings.On average, they would ideally want ~22% of their career spent conducting research-related activities.Of participants who graduated in 2019 or 2020, 42.2% have participated in TA B L E 2 TA B L E 3