Professional development is an important goal for professionals in human service fields such as counseling, teaching, and nursing. However, there are relatively few published papers on this topic specific to genetic counselors, and no studies systematically examine the outcomes of their professional development. This study was designed to investigate genetic counselors' perceptions of their post-degree learning and to compare themes in their learning to those of psychotherapist professional development models. Two hundred ninety-three genetic counselors completed the demographics portion of an anonymous online survey, and of these, 185 also responded to at least one of two open-ended items: What is the most important thing you have learned about yourself in your practice as a genetic counselor? and What advice would you give to genetic counseling students just starting their career? An interpretative content-analysis method was used to extract three major themes: Intrapersonal lessons, Interpersonal lessons, and Professional lessons. Training and practice implications and research recommendations are provided.

Research on genetic counselor professional development would characterize typical developmental processes, inform training and supervision, and promote life-long development opportunities. To date, however no studies have comprehensively examined this phenomenon. The aims of this study were to investigate the nature of professional development for genetic counselors (processes, influences, and outcomes) and whether professional development varies across experience levels. Thirty-four genetic counselors participated in semi-structured telephone interviews exploring their perspectives on their professional development. Participants were sampled from three levels of post-degree genetic counseling experience: novice (0-5 years), experienced (6-14 years), and seasoned (>15 years). Using modified Consensual Qualitative Research and grounded theory methods, themes, domains, and categories were extracted from the data. The themes reflect genetic counselors' evolving perceptions of their professional development and its relationship to: (a) being a clinician, (b) their professional identity, and (c) the field itself. Across experience levels, prevalent influences on professional development were interpersonal (e.g., experiences with patients, genetic counseling colleagues) and involved professional and personal life events. Common developmental experiences included greater confidence and less anxiety over time, being less information-driven and more emotion-focused with patients, delivering "bad news" to patients remains challenging, and individuals' professional development experiences parallel genetic counseling's development as a field. With a few noteworthy exceptions, professional development was similar across experience levels. A preliminary model of genetic counselor professional development is proposed suggesting development occurs in a non-linear fashion throughout the professional lifespan. Each component of the model mutually influences the others, and there are positive and negative avenues of development.

Peer supervision groups have been studied in counseling fields including psychotherapy and social work. However, limited research exists regarding genetic counselor peer supervision groups. In the present study five major research questions were investigated: (1) How prevalent is peer group supervision among genetic counselors? (2) What motivates genetic counselors to join and continue to seek peer group supervision? (3) What comprises the content, agenda, and structure of group meetings? (4) What are participants' perceptions of group dynamics, including conflicts, cohesion, and leadership? and (5) What are the perceived benefits and limitations of participating in peer group supervision? A total of 214 genetic counselors completed an online survey, and 70 (34.8%) reported being involved currently in peer group supervision. Fifteen of these 70 respondents were interviewed regarding their experiences in peer group supervision. Inductive analysis of their responses yielded 11 domains and 37 categories. Practice implications and research recommendations are discussed.