Artificial Intelligence-Based Chatbots in Genetic Counseling Practice: Current Uptake, Utilization, and Perspectives
Daley, N.; Griswold, A.; Moreno, L.; Floyd, A.; Duong, D.; Solomon, B. D.; Waikel, R. L.
Show abstract
AI-driven chatbots have been utilized in healthcare to automate administrative tasks, improve patient education, and expand access to medical information; however, their role in genetic counseling remains underexplored. To investigate the adoption, perceptions, and potential utility of AI-based chatbots in genetic counseling practice, 217 genetic counselors and genetic counseling students from across North America were surveyed regarding chatbot usage, confidence in their application, and perceived benefits and limitations. While most participants (166/217; 76.5%) reported using general AI chatbots outside of clinical settings, far fewer (18/204; 8.8%) reported using or recommending clinical genetics chatbots in clinical practice. For those that used clinical genetics chatbots, the primary purpose was for communication with at-risk family members (11/18; 61.1%) and patient education (10/18; 55.6%). Confidence in chatbot technology varied, with highest confidence in gathering family history information (81/199; 40.7%) and lowest confidence in their ability to disclose variants of uncertain significance or positive genetic testing results (5/199; 2.5%). The greatest perceived benefits included reducing repetitive tasks (165/195, 84.6%) and allowing for time for other tasks (141/195; 72.3%), while major concerns revolved around patient comprehension (167/195; 85.6%) and having accurate, up-to-date information (145/195; 74.4%). Despite some concern about AI replacing human counselors, most participants reported they felt there was potential for chatbots to enhance workflow efficiency (128/195; 65.6%) if properly integrated and regulated. Limited AI training was identified as a barrier to adoption (16/195; 8.2% received training), highlighting a need for structured education on AI applications in genetic counseling. These findings suggest that AI chatbots hold promise as supplementary tools, but significant challenges must be addressed before widespread implementation in genetic counseling practice.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and evaluation of a novel educational program for providers on the use of polygenic risk scores 96%
- Using Coincidence Analysis to Identify Causal Chains of Factors Associated with Implementation and Optimization of Lynch Syndrome Tumor Screening Across Multiple Health care Systems 94%
- GUIA: a digital platform to facilitate result disclosure in genetic counseling 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defining the Critical Educational Components of Informed Consent for Genetic Testing: Views of US-Based Genetic Counselors and Medical Geneticists 97%
- A Qualitative Study Exploring the Consumer Experience of Receiving Self-Initiated Polygenic Risk Scores from a Third-Party Website 94%
- Benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: results of a national physician survey 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists 95%
- Evaluation of DNA-poli: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to assess a digital platform for family cascade genetic testing and predictive genetic counselling 90%
- Early Diagnosis of Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Through AI-Powered Facial Analysis: Results from the Montalcino Aortic Consortium 86%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Variant Scientists in Genomic Medicine: Survey of Demographics, Training, Duties, and Professional Development 93%
- Clinical Validation and Diagnostic Utility of Optical Genome Mapping in Prenatal Diagnostic Testing 88%
- Rapid implementation of SARS-CoV-2 emergency use authorization RT-PCR testing and experience at an academic medical institution 87%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.