Genetic counselors (GCs) have traditionally been trained to adopt a position of equipoise or clinical neutrality. They provide information, answer questions, address barriers, and engage in shared decision‐making, but generally, they do not prescribe a genetic test. Historically, GCs have generally been trained not to persuade the ambivalent or resistant patient. More recently, however, there has been discussion regarding when a greater degree of persuasion or directionality may be appropriate within genetic counseling (GC) and what role MI may play in this process. The role for “persuasive GC” is based on the premise that some genetic tests provide actionable information that would clearly benefit patients and families by impacting treatment or surveillance. For other tests, the benefits are less clear as they do not directly impact patient care or the benefits may be more subjective in nature, driven by patient values or psychological needs. For the former, we propose that GCs may adopt a more persuasive clinical approach while for the latter, a more traditional equipoise stance may be more appropriate. We suggest that motivational interviewing (MI) could serve as a unifying counseling model that allows GCs to handle both persuasive and equipoise encounters. For clearly beneficial tests, while directional, the MI encounter can still be non‐directive, autonomy‐supportive, and patient‐centered. MI can also be adapted for equipoise situations, for example, placing less emphasis on eliciting and strengthening change talk as that is more a behavior change strategy than a shared decision‐making strategy. The core principles and strategies of MI, such as autonomy support, evocation, open questions, reflective listening, and affirmation would apply to both persuasive and equipoise encounters. Key issues that merit discussion include how best to train GCs both during their initial and post‐graduate education.

Introduction: Genetic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an autosomal dominant inherited condition primarily due to pathogenic variants in sarcomere genes, often with marked clinical variability. We hypothesized that this variability may, in part, be due to additive effects from low penetrance sarcomere variants that would otherwise be dismissed due to high population prevalence. Methods: Low-penetrance HCM-associated sarcomere gene variants were identified by meeting a threshold for enrichment in HCM (ascertained from the Sarcomeric Human Cardiomyopathy Registry, SHaRe) versus the general population (ascertained from the Genome Aggregation Database, gnomAD), defined by an odds ratio (OR) >5, and a population prevalence greater than the most common autosomal dominant pathogenic HCM variant, MYBPC3 R502W (4x10 -5 ). Clinical variables and time-event analyses were performed from SHaRe . Results: A total of 507 unique sarcomere gene variants were present in 6384 individuals with genetic testing. Ten putative low-penetrance variants were identified in the genes MYBPC3 (N=2), TNNT2 (N=1), TNNI3 (N=2), and MYH7 (N=5) with a combined OR of 12.7 (range 5.8 - 28.4). These variants had a population prevalence of 4.02x10 -5 to 3.5x10 -4 . Family members of low-penetrance variant carriers were less likely to have HCM (35/171, 20%) than those of MYBPC3 R502W carriers (44/113, 39%, p<0.005). Age of diagnosis was older in patients with isolated low-penetrance variants than those with pathogenic variants (42 ± 19 vs 37 ± 18, p=0.005). Composite adverse events were less likely in patients with isolated low-penetrance variants than typical pathogenic sarcomere variants, but the risk was additive with both present (see Figure). Conclusions: A subset of low-penetrance sarcomere gene variants are tolerated in the general population at higher than expected proportions for HCM and may exert an additive pathogenic effect. These findings support an oligogenic risk model of HCM.