Attitudes and practices among internists concerning genetic testing

The UTHealth Houston Adult Cardiovascular Genomics Certificate Program: Efficacy and Impact on Healthcare Professionals

Background

The demand for genetic services has outpaced the availability of resources, challenging clinicians untrained in genetic integration into clinical decision-making. The UTHealth Adult Cardiovascular Genomics Certificate (CGC) program trains non-genetic healthcare professionals to recognize, assess, and refer patients with heritable cardiovascular diseases. This asynchronous online course includes 24 modules in three tiers of increasing complexity, using realistic clinical scenarios, interactive dialogues, quizzes, and tests to reinforce learning. We hypothesized that the CGC will increase genomic competencies in this underserved audience and encourage applying genomic concepts in clinical practice.

Methods

Required course evaluations include pre- and post-assessments, knowledge checks in each module, and surveys for module-specific feedback. After 6 months, longitudinal feedback surveys gathered data on the long-term impact of the course on clinical practice and conducted focused interviews with learners.

Results

The CGC was accredited in September 2022. Principal learners were nurses (24%), nurse practitioners (21%), physicians (16%), and physician assistants. Scores of 283 learners in paired pre- and post-assessments increased specific skills related to recognizing heritable diseases, understanding inheritance patterns, and interpreting genetic tests. Interviews highlighted the CGC's modular structure and linked resources as key strengths. Learners endorsed confidence to use genetic information in clinical practice, such as discussing genetic concepts and risks with patients and referring patients for genetic testing. Learners were highly likely to recommend the CGC to colleagues, citing its role in enhancing heritable disease awareness.

Conclusions

The CGC program effectively empowers non-genetic clinicians to master genomic competencies, fostering collaboration to prevent deaths from heritable cardiovascular diseases, and potentially transforming healthcare education and clinical practice.

Perceptions of Nigerian medical students regarding their preparedness for precision medicine: a cross-sectional survey in Lagos, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Advances in precision medicine in Nigeria suggest improving genomics education and competency among healthcare practitioners to facilitate clinical translation. Due to the scarcity of research in this area, this study aimed to assess Nigerian medical students' perceptions about their preparedness to integrate precision medicine into their future clinical practice.

METHODS

This was an institution-based cross-sectional study of medicine and surgery students in their clinical years attending the two fully accredited colleges of medicine in Lagos, Nigeria, between April and October 2022 using an adapted tool administered via Google Forms. The survey assessed their awareness, perceptions about knowledge, ability, and attitudes toward precision medicine, ethical concerns, and perceptions about their education in precision medicine. Multivariate linear regression models were used to assess factors associated with students' perceptions of their knowledge, ability, and attitudes.

RESULTS

A total of 300 students completed the questionnaires with a response rate of 40%. Awareness of genomic medicine terminology was high (92.0%). Responses to knowledge and ability questions revealed notable gaps, however, respondents had positive attitude scores overall. Higher medical school year was independently associated with lower knowledge (ptrend = 0.003) and ability (ptrend = 0.005) scores, and knowledge score was independently associated with a higher ability score (β: 0.76 95%CI: 0.67, 0.84; p < 0.001). Attitude scores significantly increased with increasing medical school year (ptrend = 0.04). The respondents mostly indicated concerns about government and corporate bodies' misuse of genomic data (35.7%) and the widening of socioeconomic disparities (34.0%). Although 65.0% of the respondents thought it important to learn about precision medicine, only 11.3% felt that their education had adequately prepared them for precision medicine, knew who to ask questions regarding genomic testing (10.7%), and felt their professors had encouraged the use of precision medicine (10.3%).

CONCLUSION

Despite high awareness of precision medicine terminology and overall positive attitudes, our findings highlight gaps in knowledge and ability to integrate genomics into the care of patients and a need to improve precision medicine education among Nigerian medical students.

Primary care providers' preferences for the communication and management of actionable genomic findings from a research biobank

Purpose

Little is known about non-genetics health care specialists' attitudes toward the return and utilization of actionable genomic results from a research biobank. We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) to explore their perspectives on these results and their preferences for return.

Methods

We administered a paper and web-based 27-question survey to PCPs residing locally and caring for adult patients. Recruitment was conducted in person and by email, focusing on PCPs likely to interact with results generated by our institution's biobank.

Results

Of the ~482 PCPs contacted, 77 (16%) returned surveys. Although most respondents (90%) prefer that a genetics specialist be involved in communicating biobank-generated genomic results to patients, about 40% of respondents reported that a PCP shares the responsibility to discuss these results along with other specialists. A majority of respondents (74%) felt uncomfortable communicating these results to patients. However, respondents reported significantly greater comfort with this process when offered targeted educational resources (62% with vs 10% without resources; P < 10-5).

Conclusion

PCPs recognize the need to engage with their patients' biobank-generated genomic results but feel uncomfortable in doing so. Relevant resources are needed to improve PCPs' confidence in the use of these types of results to affect patient care.

Attitudes about pharmacogenomic testing vary by healthcare specialty

Aim: To understand how attitudes toward pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing among healthcare providers varies by specialty. Methods: Providers reported comfort ordering PGx testing and its perceived utility on web-based surveys before and after genetics education. Primary quantitative analyses compared primary care providers (PCPs) to specialty providers at both timepoints. Results: PCPs were more likely than specialty care providers to rate PGx testing as useful at both timepoints. Education increased comfort ordering PGx tests, with larger improvements among PCPs than specialty providers. Over 90% of cardiology and internal medicine providers rated PGx testing as useful at pre- and post-education. Conclusion: PCPs overwhelmingly perceive PGx to be useful, and provider education is particularly effective for improving PCPs' confidence. Education for all specialties will be essential to ensure appropriate integration into routine practice.

Knowledge, attitude, and perceptions about cancer genetic testing in clinical practice in Karachi, Pakistan

Healthcare professionals (HCP) play an important role in the practical application of genetic screening tests but often feel inadequately prepared for cancer genetic testing (CGT) in clinical care. As the complexity of gene-related malignancies increases, it demands HCPs' preparedness to cater to patients' needs. Therefore, the aim of our study is to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices of HCPs in Pakistan regarding the application of cancer genetics. Our cross-sectional survey was conducted from April 2022 to June 2022 amongst HCPs at a private and a governmental institution in Karachi, Pakistan. Non-probability random convenience sampling was used to select the population; however. non-clinical HCPs, as well as Interns, were excluded from our study. A total of 210 HCPs, 56.7% (119) bearing an experience of over 5 years of clinical experience, were included in this study. Most respondents from both hospitals deemed their knowledge inadequate, with only 2% (2) and 1.8% (2) being extremely knowledgeable, respectively. 68.6% (144) HCPs displayed a positive attitude towards CGT, with 55.2% (116) participants perceiving CGT in a positive light. As compared to the private sector, significantly more HCPs in the public sector dedicated ≥ 5 h/week for CME (P = 0.006), and were better prepared to counsel patients (P = 0.021) and interpret results concerning CGT (P = 0.020). Additionally, screening tests for specific cancer types were popularly considered a worthwhile avenue of investment to improve the current state of CGT in our healthcare system [47.6% (N = 100)]. Demonstrating a lack of knowledge among Pakistani doctors, our results call upon the need for additional training concerning CGT in both the public and private sectors alike. Understanding specific gaps in knowledge may further help enhance post-graduate training programs and eventually lead to effective incorporation of CGT into our healthcare setting.

Physicians' Knowledge, Attitude, and Experience of Pharmacogenomic Testing in China

(1) Background: As prescribers, physicians play a decisive role in applying and promoting pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in clinical practices. So far, little is known about physicians' perspectives on PGx testing in China. The aim of this study was to assess physicians' knowledge of, attitude towards, and experience of PGx testing in China. (2) Methods: A 39-question online survey was developed. Participants were physicians recruited through two platforms, MEDLINKER and "Dazhuanjia". (3) Results: A total of 450 respondents completed the survey and 366 questionnaires were eligible for analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Among all included physicians, 275 (75.1%) had heard of PGx testing before. More than half rated their knowledge of PGx testing as "Fair" (61.5%) while 20.0% chose "Excellent" or "Good" and 18.6% chose "Poor" or "Terrible". "Guidelines, consensus, and treatment paths for disease diagnosis and treatment" (72.7%) were the most preferred sources of information about PGx testing. Respondents were confident in their personal capacity to conduct PGx, with an average score of 3.30 ± 0.09 (out of 5.00). Most respondents (75.6%) believed that PGx could "help to improve efficacy and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions". Targeted cancer therapy (score 78.95 ± 1.26 out of 100) was considered the field where PGx testing had its highest value. Lack of professionals and knowledge (n = 186, 67.6%), high costs of testing (n = 170, 61.8%), and lack of hospitals to offer PGx testing (n = 166, 60.4%) were identified as the primary obstacles to increasing the uptake of PGx testing in China. Academic conference (n = 213, 72.4%) was considered the most efficient way for physicians to obtain information about PGx testing. (4) Conclusions: Physicians in China have poor knowledge about PGx testing; nonetheless, they generally had confidence in their capacity to order PGx testing and positive attitudes towards the use of PGx testing in routine clinical practices. Future efforts to promote the uptake of PGx testing should focus on foundational education and practical training.

Workforce Considerations When Building a Precision Medicine Program

This paper describes one healthcare system's approach to strategically deploying genetic specialists and pharmacists to support the implementation of a precision medicine program. In 2013, Sanford Health initiated the development of a healthcare system-wide precision medicine program. Here, we report the necessary staffing including the genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, pharmacists, and geneticists. We examined the administrative and electronic medical records data to summarize genetic referrals over time as well as the uptake and results of an enterprise-wide genetic screening test. Between 2013 and 2020, the number of genetic specialists employed at Sanford Health increased by 190%, from 10.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 29.3 FTEs. Over the same period, referrals from multiple provider types to genetic services increased by 423%, from 1438 referrals to 7517 referrals. Between 2018 and 2020, 11,771 patients received a genetic screening, with 4% identified with potential monogenic medically actionable predisposition (MAP) findings and 95% identified with at least one informative pharmacogenetic result. Of the MAP-positive patients, 85% had completed a session with a genetics provider. A strategic workforce staffing and deployment allowed Sanford Health to manage a new genetic screening program, which prompted a large increase in genetic referrals. This approach can be used as a template for other healthcare systems interested in the development of a precision medicine program.

Genetic Testing to Inform Epilepsy Treatment Management From an International Study of Clinical Practice

Importance

It is currently unknown how often and in which ways a genetic diagnosis given to a patient with epilepsy is associated with clinical management and outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate how genetic diagnoses in patients with epilepsy are associated with clinical management and outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients referred for multigene panel testing between March 18, 2016, and August 3, 2020, with outcomes reported between May and November 2020. The study setting included a commercial genetic testing laboratory and multicenter clinical practices. Patients with epilepsy, regardless of sociodemographic features, who received a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant were included in the study. Case report forms were completed by all health care professionals.

Exposures

Genetic test results.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical management changes after a genetic diagnosis (ie, 1 P/LP variant in autosomal dominant and X-linked diseases; 2 P/LP variants in autosomal recessive diseases) and subsequent patient outcomes as reported by health care professionals on case report forms.

Results

Among 418 patients, median (IQR) age at the time of testing was 4 (1-10) years, with an age range of 0 to 52 years, and 53.8% (n = 225) were female individuals. The mean (SD) time from a genetic test order to case report form completion was 595 (368) days (range, 27-1673 days). A genetic diagnosis was associated with changes in clinical management for 208 patients (49.8%) and usually (81.7% of the time) within 3 months of receiving the result. The most common clinical management changes were the addition of a new medication (78 [21.7%]), the initiation of medication (51 [14.2%]), the referral of a patient to a specialist (48 [13.4%]), vigilance for subclinical or extraneurological disease features (46 [12.8%]), and the cessation of a medication (42 [11.7%]). Among 167 patients with follow-up clinical information available (mean [SD] time, 584 [365] days), 125 (74.9%) reported positive outcomes, 108 (64.7%) reported reduction or elimination of seizures, 37 (22.2%) had decreases in the severity of other clinical signs, and 11 (6.6%) had reduced medication adverse effects. A few patients reported worsening of outcomes, including a decline in their condition (20 [12.0%]), increased seizure frequency (6 [3.6%]), and adverse medication effects (3 [1.8%]). No clinical management changes were reported for 178 patients (42.6%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that genetic testing of individuals with epilepsy may be materially associated with clinical decision-making and improved patient outcomes.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Molecular Pathology Education: A Suggested Framework for Primary Care Resident Training in Genomic Medicine: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology Training and Education Committee

Developments in genomics are profoundly influencing medical practice. With increasing use of genetic and genomic testing across every aspect of the health care continuum, patients and their families are increasingly turning to primary care physicians (PCPs) for discussion and advice regarding tests, implications, and results. Yet, with the rapid growth of information, technology, and applications, PCPs are finding it challenging to fill the gaps in knowledge and support the growing needs of their patients. A critical component in expanding PCP genomic literacy lies in the education of physicians in training and in practice. Although a framework for developing physician competencies in genomics has already been developed, the Association for Molecular Pathology is uniquely situated to actively utilize the skills of its members to engage and support PCPs in this effort. This report provides an overview and a suggested basic teaching framework, which can be used by molecular professionals in their individual institutions as a starting point for educational outreach.

Integrating clinical genetics in cardiology: Current practices and recommendations for education

PURPOSE

Recent advances in genetics can facilitate the identification of at-risk individuals and diagnosis of cardiovascular disorders. As a nascent field, more research is needed to optimize the clinical practice of cardiovascular genetics, including the assessment of educational needs to promote appropriate use of genetic testing.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews conducted with cardiovascular specialists (N = 43) were audiotaped. Thematic analysis was conducted on professional transcripts.

RESULTS

Participants recognized the value of genetics in identifying and diagnosing at-risk individuals. However, organizational systems, cost, and feeling of unpreparedness were identified as barriers. Participants felt that the rapid pace of genetic science resulted in further challenges to maintaining an adequate knowledge base and highlighted genetics experts' importance. Even when a genetics expert was available, participants wanted to know more about which patients benefit most from genetic testing and expressed a desire to better understand management recommendations associated with a positive test result.

CONCLUSION

Participants recognized the benefit but felt underprepared to provide recommendations for genetic testing and, in some cases, lacked organizational resources to refer patients to a genetics expert. Additional training in genetics for cardiology practitioners and ensuring availability of a genetics expert can improve the use of genetics in cardiology settings.

Artificial Intelligence and Cardiovascular Genetics

Polygenic diseases, which are genetic disorders caused by the combined action of multiple genes, pose unique and significant challenges for the diagnosis and management of affected patients. A major goal of cardiovascular medicine has been to understand how genetic variation leads to the clinical heterogeneity seen in polygenic cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Recent advances and emerging technologies in artificial intelligence (AI), coupled with the ever-increasing availability of next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, now provide researchers with unprecedented possibilities for dynamic and complex biological genomic analyses. Combining these technologies may lead to a deeper understanding of heterogeneous polygenic CVDs, better prognostic guidance, and, ultimately, greater personalized medicine. Advances will likely be achieved through increasingly frequent and robust genomic characterization of patients, as well the integration of genomic data with other clinical data, such as cardiac imaging, coronary angiography, and clinical biomarkers. This review discusses the current opportunities and limitations of genomics; provides a brief overview of AI; and identifies the current applications, limitations, and future directions of AI in genomics.

Utilization of genetic testing: Analysis of 4,499 prior authorization requests for molecular genetic tests at four US regional health plans

Continuous advances in genetic testing methodologies and an increased understanding of the genetic mechanisms of diseases have fueled genetic testing utilization across health care specialties. To our knowledge, national trends in the ordering of genetic testing have not been studied broadly across clinical indications, testing methodologies, and ordering provider specialties. We performed a retrospective analysis of 4,499 complete prior authorization requests for molecular genetic testing submitted to four regional health plans' commercial lines of business between May 1, 2019 and May 31, 2019. Ordering providers were characterized by their certification(s) and specialty of practice. Among 4,499 genetic testing requests, 92% were ordered by non-genetics providers. Obstetrician/gynecology (OBGYN) (63%), oncology (15%), and genetics (8%) providers ordered genetic testing most frequently. Reproductive, hereditary cancer, and tumor testing were the most frequently ordered genetic tests. Seventy-nine percent of all prior authorization requests were approved. When analyzing complex genetic testing requests, we found that testing ordered by genetics providers was more likely to be approved based on health plan policy than testing ordered by non-genetics providers. Our results suggest that health care providers across multiple medical specialties may benefit from involvement of genetics specialists in decision-making regarding molecular tests.

Genetic Referral Patterns and Responses to Clinical Scenarios: A Survey of Primary Care Providers and Clinical Geneticists

Introduction:

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are considered the gatekeepers of genetic services, but they often underutilize or inappropriately utilize such services, leading to lack of early treatment, incorrect diagnoses, and unnecessary procedures. This study aims to delineate PCP referral patterns, including the frequency of, motivators for, and barriers to genetic referrals and testing in the present landscape of genomics.

Methods:

A 34-item online survey was distributed to PCPs in the United States (US). PCP demographics, practice characteristics, and referral patterns, motivators, and barriers were analyzed. Six hypothetical clinical scenarios included in the survey also were presented to a cohort of clinical geneticists. We calculated PCPs’ rates of ordering genetic tests and of referral to genetics services in the past year. Rates and responses to clinical scenarios were compared based on respondents’ personal and practice characteristics.

Results:

A total of 95 PCPs and 25 clinical geneticists participated. Among the PCPs, 79% reported referring and 50% reported ordering genetic testing in the last year. PCPs with genetic counselors (GCs) in their clinic referred at significantly higher rates than those without (P = .008). White PCPs referred at significantly higher rates compared to Black or African American PCPs (P = .009). The most commonly reported motivators for referring patients to genetic services were preference for specialist coordination, lack of knowledge, and family’s desire for risk information. The most commonly reported barriers were patient refusal, provider concerns about costs to patients, and uncertainty of when a genetic referral is appropriate. In response to clinical scenarios, clinical geneticists were in agreement about the need for genetic testing or referral for 2 of the scenarios. For these 2 scenarios, only 48% and 71% of PCPs indicated that they would offer genetic testing or referral, respectively.

Conclusions:

Responses to clinical scenarios suggest that it is not clear to PCPs when referrals or testing are needed. Collaboration with GCs is one approach to reducing barriers to and improving PCPs’ utilization of genetic services. Clear guidelines from clinical geneticists may help facilitate appropriate use of genetics services by PCPs. Additional research is needed to further describe barriers that PCPs face in genetic testing/referrals.

Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising From Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?

Precision medicine is increasingly incorporated into clinical practice via three primary data conduits: environmental, lifestyle, and genetic data. In this manuscript we take a closer look at the genetic tier of precision medicine. The volume and variety of data provides a more robust picture of health for individual patients and patient populations. However, this increased data may also have an adverse effect by muddling our understanding without the proper pedagogical tools. Patient genomic data can be challenging to work with. Physicians may encounter genetic results which are not fully understood. Genetic tests may also lead to the quandary of linking patients with diseases or disorders where there are no known treatments. Thus, physicians face a unique challenge of establishing the proper scope of their duty to patients when dealing with genomic data. Some of those scope of practice boundaries have been established as a result of litigation, while others remain an open question. In this paper, we map out some of the legal challenges facing the genomic component of precision medicine, both established and some questions requiring additional guidance. If physicians begin to perceive genomic data as falling short in overall benefit to their patients, it may detrimentally impact precision medicine as a whole. Helping to develop guidance for physicians working with patient genomic data can help avoid this fate of faltering confidence.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance

Purpose:

How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance (VUS), or benign) is unknown.

Methods:

We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1=highest priority, 6=lowest priority).

Results:

PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (72% vs 16%, p<0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or EGD, in response to pathogenic variants or VUSs than benign variants (43% vs 4%, p<0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUSs (both p>0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUSs, 4.3 for benign variants, all p≤0.014).

Conclusions:

Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUSs as SFs would substantially increase downstream health care utilization.

Physicians' Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Point-of-Care Pharmacogenetic Testing: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Pharmacogenetic testing (PGx) is a diagnostic technique used by physicians to determine the possible reactions of patients to drug treatment on the basis of their genetic makeup. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of physicians’ awareness, attitudes, and sociodemographics on the adoption of point-of-care (POC) PGx testing as a diagnostic method, as well as the impact of their knowledge, attitudes, and sociodemographics on its adoption.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of 200 physicians and medical trainees working at the Clinics of King Abdullah University Hospital in Jordan was performed. Data on sociodemographics, knowledge and attitudes concerning PGx testing, genetic information sources, and barriers to POC-PGx testing adoption were gathered.

Results

Participants’ perceived knowledge of the role of PGx testing in therapeutic decision-making was rated as “Excellent” (1.9%), “Very Good” (19.4%), “Good” (34.4%), “Fair” (32.5%), and “Poor” (11.9%). Physicians’ actual knowledge of PGx testing was adequate (mean=3.56 out of 7, SD=1.2), but their attitudes were generally favorable (mean=3.64 out of 5.00, SD=0.52). According to Rogers’ theory, many variables (eg, perceived need, relative advantage, compatibility) had a significant impact on physicians’ willingness to endorse POC-PGx testing.

Discussion

The majority of physicians stated that they were unaware of PGx testing. Physicians’ perceived knowledge of POC-PGx testing, however, was higher than those who participated in other studies. Participants were optimistic about the future benefits of PGx testing in prescribing effective medications and reducing potential side effects, which were consistent with previous studies. Physicians’ willingness to accept and implement POC-PGx testing was hampered by a lack of PGx expertise, as well as concerns about patient confidentiality, employability, and insurability. More training and genetic courses are needed, according to the majority of participants.

Awareness of genetic counseling services among allied healthcare professionals in South Africa

Genetic counseling has been shown to increase patient empowerment leading to positive outcomes. However, in the Johannesburg state healthcare system, the genetic counseling service is underutilized. Individuals with genetic disorders present with a variety of symptoms and are frequently referred to allied healthcare professionals for management; therefore, these professionals are in a unique position to identify appropriate patients and refer them for genetic counseling. This study aimed to determine whether allied health professionals, including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and speech and language therapists, were aware of genetic counseling services in Johannesburg, South Africa, and whether they had previously referred patients to these services. The study also aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to referral. An adapted paper-copy questionnaire was administered to allied health professionals working at one of three state hospitals in Johannesburg. A total of 57 participants were included in this study. Results indicated that 29/57 (50.9%) of allied health professionals knew that genetic counseling services were available but only 15/29 (51.7%) of those who knew of the service had referred patients to these services in the last year. Barriers to referral included misconceptions about the role of genetic counselors, insufficient knowledge of which patients would benefit from genetic counseling, and being unable to obtain appropriate information from the Genetics Clinic for patient referral. However, allied health professionals recognized the benefit of genetic counseling and 53/57 (93%) wanted to increase their genetics knowledge. Therefore, genetics education of allied health professionals, and improved information regarding the referral procedure for genetic counseling, may improve the number of patients referred.

How do non-geneticist physicians deal with genetic tests? A qualitative analysis

Genetic testing is accepted to be a common practice in many medical specialties. These genetic tests raise issues such as respect for basic rights, how to handle results and uncertainty and how to balance concerns for medical confidentiality with the rights of third parties. Physicians need help to deal with the rapid development of genomic medicine as most of them have received no specific training on the medical, ethical, and social issues involved. Analyzing how these professionals integrate genetic testing into the patient-provider relationship is essential to paving the way for a better use of genomics by all. We conducted a qualitative study comprising a series of focus groups with 21 neurologists and endocrinologists about their genetic testing practices in the western part of France. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed for major themes. We identified an automated care management procedure of genetic testing that affects patient autonomy. The simple fact of having a written consent cannot justify a genetic test given the stakes associated with the results. We also suggest orienting practices toward a systemic approach using a multidisciplinary team or network to provide resources for dealing with uncertainties in interpreting results or situations that require additional technical or clinical skills and, if necessary, to allow for joint consultations with both a geneticist and a non-geneticist medical specialist.

Integrating Genomic Screening into Primary Care: Provider Experiences Caring for Latino Patients at a Community-Based Health Center

Introduction:

Minority communities have had limited access to advances in genomic medicine. Mayo Clinic and Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, partnered to assess the feasibility of offering genomic screening to Latino patients receiving care at a community-based health center. We examined primary care provider (PCP) experiences reporting genomic screening results and integrating those results into patient care.

Methods:

We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and other members of the health care team charged with supporting patients who received positive genomic screening results. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically.

Results:

Of the 500 patients who pursued genomic screening, 10 received results indicating a genetic variant that warranted clinical management. PCPs felt genomic screening was valuable to patients and their families, and that genomic research should strive to include underrepresented minorities. Providers identified multiple challenges integrating genomic sequencing into patient care, including difficulties maintaining patient contact over time; arranging follow-up medical care; and managing results in an environment with limited genetics expertise. Providers also reflected on the ethics of offering genomic sequencing to patients who may not be able to pursue diagnostic testing or follow-up care due to financial constraints.

Conclusions:

Our results highlight the potential benefits and challenges of bringing advances in precision medicine to community-based health centers serving under-resourced populations. By proactively considering patient support needs, and identifying financial assistance programs and patient-referral mechanisms to support patients who may need specialized medical care, PCPs and other health care providers can help to ensure that precision medicine lives up to its full potential as a tool for improving patient care.

Genetic Testing in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Neurodevelopmental disorders are the most prevalent chronic medical conditions encountered in pediatric primary care. In addition to identifying appropriate descriptive diagnoses and guiding families to evidence-based treatments and supports, comprehensive care for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders includes a search for an underlying etiologic diagnosis, primarily through a genetic evaluation. Identification of an underlying genetic etiology can inform prognosis, clarify recurrence risk, shape clinical management, and direct patients and families to condition-specific resources and supports. Here we review the utility of genetic testing in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders and describe the three major testing modalities and their yields - chromosomal microarray, exome sequencing (with/without copy number variant calling), and FMR1 CGG repeat analysis for fragile X syndrome. Given the diagnostic yield of genetic testing and the potential for clinical and personal utility, there is consensus that genetic testing should be offered to all patients with global developmental delay, intellectual disability, and/or autism spectrum disorder. Despite this recommendation, data suggest that a minority of children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability have undergone genetic testing. To address this gap in care, we describe a structured but flexible approach to facilitate integration of genetic testing into clinical practice across pediatric specialties and discuss future considerations for genetic testing in neurodevelopmental disorders to prepare pediatric providers to care for patients with such diagnoses today and tomorrow.

Primary Care Physician Experiences with Integrated Population-Scale Genetic Testing: A Mixed-Methods Assessment

The scalable delivery of genomic medicine requires collaboration between genetics and non-genetics providers. Thus, it is essential to investigate and address the perceived value of and barriers to incorporating genetic testing into the clinical practice of primary care providers (PCPs). We used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative interviews and surveys to explore the experience of PCPs involved in the pilot DNA-10K population genetic testing program. Similar to previous research, PCPs reported low confidence with tasks related to ordering, interpreting and managing the results of genetic tests, and identified the need for additional education. PCPs endorsed high levels of utility for patients and their families but noted logistical challenges to incorporating genetic testing into their practice. Overall PCPs were not familiar with the United States' Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and they expressed high levels of concern for patient data privacy and potential insurance discrimination. This PCP feedback led to the development and implementation of several processes to improve the PCP experience with the DNA-10K program. These results contribute to the knowledge base regarding genomic implementation using a mixed provider model and may be beneficial for institutions developing similar clinical programs.

Impact of a Genetic Evaluation Initiative to Increase Access to Genetic Services for Adolescent and Young Adults at a Tertiary Cancer Hospital

Purpose: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are at increased risk for inherited cancer predisposition syndromes. Genetic counseling (GC) is important for accurate risk assessment, diagnosis, and management of inherited cancers. Numerous barriers prevent AYA access to genetic services. This study describes outcomes of a genetic evaluation initiative (GEI) regarding utilization of genetic services among AYAs. Methods: To improve AYA access to GC, the AYA program at UT MD Anderson Cancer Center implemented GEI, a process for identifying and referring eligible patients for GC. We collected retrospective electronic medical record data between July 12, 2018 and July 12, 2019 to capture AYA's clinical characteristics, genetic referral, scheduled appointments, counseling, testing, and results. Results: In total, 516 AYAs were referred to the AYA clinic during the study period with a median age of first cancer diagnosis of 17 years. One hundred sixty-six AYAs were identified who would benefit from genetic evaluation, 57 (34.3%) of whom had previously undergone counseling. One hundred nine patients were recommended for referral to GC, and 64.2% (70/109) were referred by the AYA team. To date, 58.6% (41/70) met with a genetic counselor and 75.6% (31/41) completed genetic testing, which yielded 1 pathogenic, 2 uncertain, and 29 benign results. Conclusion: The GEI resulted in a 72.0% relative increase in the rate of GC utilization and represents a novel approach to increasing AYA patient access to cancer genetic services in this population.

The difference in knowledge and concerns between healthcare professionals and patients about genetic-related issues: A questionnaire-based study

Effective adoption of genetics in clinical practice requires the support of and interaction between the different partners of healthcare system; healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients. The study aimed to assess and compare the knowledge, factors affecting the knowledge, and concerns of HCPs and patients regarding genetic-related issues such as lack of knowledge about genetics and genetic conditions, awareness of the importance of genetics in clinical practice and genetic services and resources deficits. A cross sectional study was conducted in different areas of Jordan using a convenient sampling approach. An English questionnaire was self-administered to HCPs. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with patients in Arabic by trained researcher. A total of 1000 HCPs and 1448 patients were recruited. There was a significant difference (p<0.001) in the knowledge between HCPs and patients. Among HCPs, physicians (OR = 2.278, 95%CI = 1.410–3.680, p = 0.001) and pharmacists (OR = 2.163, 95%CI = 1.362–3.436, p = 0.001) were more knowledgeable than nurses. In addition, females were more knowledgeable than males (OR = 1.717, 95%CI = 1.203–2.451, p = 0.003). Among patients, participants who had a bachelor degree (OR = 1.579, 95%CI = 1.231–2.025, p<0.001) were more knowledgeable compared to those who only had school education. HCPs appeared to have more concerns than patients (p<0.001) regarding all genetic-related issues. These findings suggested a positive association between education and genetic knowledge as well as concerns; as HCPs were more knowledgeable and concerned than patients. Appropriate integration and expansion of basic genetic knowledge courses and clinical genetic training in the curriculum should be adopted to prepare HCPs to enhance the integration of genetic information in clinical settings.

The Importance of Genetics Experts in Optimizing Genetic Test Orders Through Prospective and Retrospective Reviews

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the impact of genetics specialists on identifying test order errors and improving reimbursement for genetic testing.

METHODS

Forty-four cases in which whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed but not reimbursed were reviewed by a genetic counselor through simulated prospective and retrospective reviews.

RESULTS

Fifty-two percent of WES requests were ordered by nongenetics providers. Retrospective review revealed that 50% of cases were denied because of contractual constraints on billing. If review by a genetic counselor had occurred in real time, modifications or cancellations would have been recommended in 82% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

A laboratory stewardship program involving genetics experts identified test order errors and opportunities for improved reimbursement and cost savings. Significant variables affected reimbursement, including inpatient status, payer criteria, and ordering provider specialty.

"Balancing Expectations with Actual Realities": Conversations with Clinicians and Scientists in the First Year of a High-Risk Childhood Cancer Precision Medicine Trial

Precision medicine is changing cancer care and placing new demands on oncology professionals. Precision medicine trials for high-risk childhood cancer exemplify these complexities. We assessed clinicians' (n = 39) and scientists' (n = 15) experiences in the first year of the PRecISion Medicine for Children with Cancer (PRISM) trial for children and adolescents with high-risk cancers, through an in-depth semi-structured interview. We thematically analysed participants' responses regarding their professional challenges, and measured oncologists' knowledge of genetics and confidence with somatic and germline molecular test results. Both groups described positive early experiences with PRISM but were cognisant of managing parents' expectations. Key challenges for clinicians included understanding and communicating genomic results, balancing biopsy risks, and drug access. Most oncologists rated 'good' knowledge of genetics, but a minority were 'very confident' in interpreting (25%), explaining (34.4%) and making treatment recommendations (18.8%) based on somatic genetic test results. Challenges for scientists included greater emotional impact of their work and balancing translational outputs with academic productivity. Continued tracking of these challenges across the course of the trial, while assessing the perspectives of a wider range of stakeholders, is critical to drive the ongoing development of a workforce equipped to manage the demands of paediatric precision medicine.

Clinical application of genomic high-throughput data: Infrastructural, ethical, legal and psychosocial aspects

Genomic high-throughput technologies (GHTT) such as next-generation sequencing represent a fast and cost-effective tool toward a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular background of complex diseases. However, technological advances contrast with insufficient application in clinical practice. Thus, patients, physicians, and other professionals are faced with tough challenges that forestall the efficient and effective implementation. With the increasing application of genetic testing, it is of paramount importance that physicians and other professionals in healthcare recognize the restrictions and potential of GHTT, in order to understand and interpret the complex data in the context of health and disease. At the same time, the growing volume and complexity of data is forever increasing the need for sustainable infrastructure and state-of-the-art tools for efficient data management, including their analysis and integration. The large pool of sensitive information remains difficult to interpret and fundamental questions spanning from billing to legal, social, and ethical issues have still not been resolved. Here we summarize and discuss these obstacles in an interdisciplinary context and suggest ways to overcome them. Continuous discussion with clinicians, data managers, biostatisticians, systems medicine experts, ethicists, legal scholars, and patients illuminates the strengths, weakness, and current practices in the pipeline from biomaterial to sequencing and data management. This discussion also highlights the new, cross-disciplinary working collaborations to realize the wide-ranging challenges in clinical genomics including the exceptional demands placed on the staff preparing and presenting the data, as well as the question as to how to report the data and results to patients.

The Ethics of Direct-to-Consumer Testing

Direct to consumer laboratory testing is a rapidly growing industry. However, the idea of consumers ordering their own laboratory tests has raised ethical concerns. Respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice are core principles of biomedical ethics. Although direct to consumer testing would seem to offer autonomy to consumers, autonomy is only maintained if certain criteria are met, including intentionality, understanding, and noncontrol. There is little published evidence to support either beneficence or maleficence of direct to consumer testing. Finally, there are conflicting opinions about the justice of direct to consumer testing and whether it increases or decreases health disparities.

Integrating Medical Humanities into medical school training

Medical teaching must include new knowledge and technologies and how these affect patient care. The Medical Humanities can contribute to a more holistic and caring view of health and disease.

Population Whole Exome Screening: Primary Care Provider Attitudes About Preparedness, Information Avoidance, and Nudging

Compared to clinicians previously surveyed, primary care providers employed in a health system known for clinical genomics were more likely to have ordered or referred a patient for genetic testing, but had only modestly more genetics training and reported similarly low levels of comfort answering patient questions about genetic risk. Most supported population genomic screening, reported willingness to get screened themselves, and judged a hypothetical patient's decision to be screened favorably relative to a similar patient's decision to decline screening. Stakeholder perceptions of the ethical appropriateness of nudging at-risk patients to discuss testing with counselors were mixed.

Preparing Medical Specialists to Practice Genomic Medicine: Education an Essential Part of a Broader Strategy

Developing a competent workforce will be crucial to realizing the promise of genomic medicine. The preparedness of medical specialists without specific genetic qualifications to play a role in this workforce has long been questioned, prompting widespread calls for education across the spectrum of medical training. Adult learning theory indicates that for education to be effective, a perceived need to learn must first be established. Medical specialists have to perceive genomic medicine as relevant to their clinical practice. Here, we review what is currently known about medical specialists’ perceptions of genomics, compare these findings to those from the genetics era, and identify areas for future research. Previous studies reveal that medical specialists’ views on the clinical utility of genomic medicine are mixed and are often tempered by several concerns. Specialists generally perceive their confidence and understanding to be lacking; subsequently, they welcome additional educational support, although specific needs are rarely detailed. Similar findings from the genetics era suggest that these challenges are not necessarily new but on a different scale and relevant to more specialties as genomic applications expand. While existing strategies developed for genetic education and training may be suitable for genomic education and training, investigating the educational needs of a wider range of specialties is critically necessary to determine if tailored approaches are needed and, if so, to facilitate these. Other interventions are also required to address some of the additional challenges identified in this review, and we encourage readers to see education as part of a broader implementation strategy.

Ethics for Laboratory Medicine

BACKGROUND

Laboratory medicine, like other areas of medicine, is obliged to adhere to high ethical standards. There are particular ethical issues that are unique to laboratory medicine and other areas in which ethical issues uniquely impact laboratory practice. Despite this, there is variability in ethics education within the profession. This review provides a foundation for the study of ethics within laboratory medicine.

CONTENT

The Belmont Report identifies 3 core principles in biomedical ethics: respect for persons (including autonomy), beneficence (and its corollary nonmalfeasance), and justice. These core principles must be adhered to in laboratory medicine. Informed consent is vital to maintain patient autonomy. However, balancing patient autonomy with the desire for beneficence can sometimes be difficult when patients refuse testing or treatment. The use of leftover or banked samples is fundamental to the ability to do research, create reference intervals, and develop new tests, but it creates problems with consent. Advances in genetic testing have created unique ethical issues regarding privacy, incidental findings, and informed consent. As in other professions, the emergence of highly contagious and deadly infectious diseases poses a difficult ethical dilemma of helping patients while protecting healthcare workers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many clinical laboratorians do not see or treat patients, they must be held accountable to the highest ethical and professional behavior. Recognition and understanding of ethical issues are essential to ethical practice of laboratory medicine.

A comparative study of patients' perceptions of genetic and genomic medicine services in California and Malaysia

In the era of personalized and genomic medicine, awareness of patients with rare diseases is increasing as new approaches to diagnosis and treatment are developed. This study examined perceived barriers experienced by families with rare diseases and explored possible differences between participants in Malaysia and California, USA. The study involved N = 108 participants recruited in genetics clinic appointments at the University of Malaya Medical Center and three sites in Southern California. Participants completed a survey involving multiple choice and Likert scale items pertaining to perceived barriers to access genetics-related healthcare. Results from this study provide evidence of similar perceived barriers, despite differences in the two populations. Participants selected the expansion of healthcare provider knowledge of rare diseases to be the most beneficial approach to overcome perceived barriers. In both locations, it was also noted that travel distance to clinic was not perceived as a large stress factor. Taking these observations together, a healthcare model with a central location of providers well-versed in medical genetics may be considered if further data support our findings. The data from this study support a need for improving healthcare provider knowledge of genetics. Future studies exploring how these perceived stress factors are impacting families as well as different methods of educating providers are suggested by findings from the study, as well as studies querying the opinions of those who are unable to access genetics services.

Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Experience with Personal Genetic Testing

Primary care providers (PCPs) will play an important role in precision medicine. However, their lack of training and knowledge about genetics and genomics may limit their ability to advise patients or interpret or utilize test results. We evaluated PCPs’ awareness of the role of genetics/genomics in health, knowledge about key concepts in genomic medicine, perception/attitudes towards direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, and their level of confidence/comfort in discussing testing with patients prior to and after undergoing DTC testing through the 23andMe Health + Ancestry Service. A total of 130 PCPs completed the study. Sixty-three percent were board-certified in family practice, 32% graduated between 1991 and 2000, and 88% had heard of 23andMe prior to the study. Seventy-two percent decided to participate in the study to gain a better understanding about testing. At baseline, 23% of respondents indicated comfort discussing genetics as a risk factor for common diseases, increasing to 59% after undergoing personal genetic testing (PGT) (p < 0.01). In summary, we find that undergoing PGT augments physicians’ confidence, comfort, and interest in DTC testing.

Cases in Precision Medicine: Concerns About Privacy and Discrimination After Genomic Sequencing

Patients and research participants have indicated that privacy of their genetic test results is an important concern, particularly with respect to insurance coverage. Internists and other physicians whose patients ask about legal protections for information generated by genome sequencing for clinical purposes can provide both reassurance and caution. Protections for medical information in general, as well as laws in some states that provide additional safeguards for genetic data, should reassure patients that this information will remain private. Patients themselves will need to weigh the risks versus the benefits of generating genomic data in deciding whether to undergo exome sequencing.

Examination of rare genetic variants in dental enamel genes: The potential role of next-generation sequencing in primary dental care

OBJECTIVES

To examine the potential role of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and genetic testing to guide preventive care in dental enamel disorders using publicly available databases to access the frequency of deleterious alleles in AMTN, AMLEX and ENAM, associated with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI).

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

Public resources, including gnomAD (The Broad Institute) and the Center for Pediatric Genomic Medicine's warehouse, which together contain variants from nearly 145 000 exomes and genomes.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Public resources, including sequencing data from ~145 000 exomes and genomes were queried for predicted loss of function variants with a minor allele frequency <1% in AMTN, AMLEX and ENAM.

RESULTS

A total of 95 variants were identified in the combined dataset. If confirmed, this could be diagnostic for autosomal dominant AI.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapid integration of NGS into clinical care allows for the expansion of genetic testing for disorders that are not currently tested routinely, including non-syndromic dental enamel disorders. A genotypic-driven diagnosis of a disorder of enamel development could impact dental care, especially in young children, including early and more frequent monitoring to prevent complications. As new gene-disease associations continue to emerge, including those for common and non-syndromic craniofacial disorders, the possibility of genomic-guided precision medicine and dentistry and the development of targeted, individualized therapeutics into standard clinical care will increase substantially.

Technology-Driven Noninvasive Prenatal Screening Results Disclosure and Management

Background: Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) utilization has grown dramatically and is increasingly offered to the general population by nongenetic specialists. Web-based technologies and telegenetic services offer potential solutions for efficient results delivery and genetic counseling. Introduction: All major guidelines recommend patients with both negative and positive results be counseled. The main objective of this study was to quantify patient utilization, motivation for posttest counseling, and satisfaction of a technology platform designed for large-scale dissemination of NIPS results. Methods: The technology platform provided general education videos to patients, results delivery through a secure portal, and access to telegenetic counseling through phone. Automatic results delivery to patients was sent only to patients with screen-negative results. For patients with screen-positive results, either the ordering provider or a board-certified genetic counselor contacted the patient directly through phone to communicate the test results and provide counseling. Results: Over a 39-month period, 67,122 NIPS results were issued through the platform, and 4,673 patients elected genetic counseling consultations; 95.2% (n = 4,450) of consultations were for patients receiving negative results. More than 70% (n = 3,370) of consultations were on-demand rather than scheduled. A positive screen, advanced maternal age, family history, previous history of a pregnancy with a chromosomal abnormality, and other high-risk pregnancy were associated with the greatest odds of electing genetic counseling. By combining web education, automated notifications, and telegenetic counseling, we implemented a service that facilitates results disclosure for ordering providers. Discussion: This automated results delivery platform illustrates the use of technology in managing large-scale disclosure of NIPS results. Further studies should address effectiveness and satisfaction among patients and providers in greater detail. Conclusions: These data demonstrate the capability to deliver NIPS results, education, and counseling-congruent with professional society management guidelines-to a large population.

Views Of Primary Care Providers On Testing Patients For Genetic Risks For Common Chronic Diseases

We surveyed 488 primary care providers in community and academic practices in New York City in the period 2014-16 about their views on genetic testing for chronic diseases. The majority of the providers, most of whom were current or recent physicians in training, had had formal genetics education and had positive views of the utility of genetic testing. However, they felt unprepared to work with patients at high risk for genetic conditions and were not confident about interpreting test results. Many were concerned that genetic testing might lead to insurance discrimination and lacked trust in companies that offer genetic tests. These findings point to some of the attitudes and knowledge gaps among the providers that should be considered in the clinical implementation of genomic medicine for chronic conditions. Enhanced training, guidelines, clinical tools, and awareness of patient protections might support the effective adoption of genomic medicine by primary care providers.

Evaluating and improving the implementation of a community-based hereditary cancer screening program

Healthcare disparities exist in the provision of cancer genetic services including genetic counseling and testing related to BRCA1/2 mutations. To address this in a community health setting a screening tool was created to identify high-risk women. This study evaluates the implementation of the tool and identifies opportunities for improved cancer genetic screening, including regular clinician education. A mixed-method approach was used to evaluate clinician utilization of the screening tool at Planned Parenthood affiliates. Novel surveys that evaluated acceptance and implementation were administered to clinicians (n = 14) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6) were used to explore clinicians' perspectives and identify gaps in its utilization. Educational modules that addressed gaps were developed, implemented, and evaluated using a post-education survey (n = 8). Clinicians reported confidence in administering and interpreting the screening tool, but reported less confidence in their knowledge of cancer genetics and ability to connect clients with genetic counseling and testing (p = .003). Educational modules resulted in significant gains in clinician knowledge on genetic topics (p < .05) and increased self-reported confidence in connecting clients with genetic services. The modules reinforced the belief that genetic testing is beneficial for patients at increased risk (p = .001) and is important to inform subsequent medical management (p = .027). While building community clinicians' capacity to connect clients with genetic services is crucial, it is challenged by knowledge and confidence gaps in discussions of genetic services with clients. Consistent genetic-focused education with non-genetic clinicians can improve confidence and knowledge, enabling a more effective screening program in community health settings.

Video Education on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) for Physicians: an Interventional Study

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the gold standard in hereditary cancer risk assessment, screening, and treatment. A minority of physicians follow NCCN guidelines for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. This study assesses the impact of an interventional educational program on HBOC in terms of knowledge. Physicians were sent an invite to join either an intervention survey (web-training offered prior to the knowledge survey) or control survey (web-training offered after the knowledge survey). Sixty-nine physicians in the intervention arm and 67 physicians in the control arm completed the survey. The interventional group regularly answered items correctly at a higher frequency than the control group. For example, 64.71% (n = 44) of physicians in the intervention group knew that multi-gene testing does not have to include only highly penetrant genes compared to 32.84% (n = 22) of the control group (p < 0.01). Similar results were seen with other specific survey items. The current study is important in that it shows web-based education to be a feasible and effective modality for training on hereditary breast cancer. This type of education may be incorporated into CME programs and can be used as a foundation for further studies as well.

Information exchange between patients with Lynch syndrome and their genetic and non-genetic health professionals: whose responsibility?

Individuals at high risk for Lynch syndrome (LS) should be offered genetic counselling, since preventive options are available. However, uptake of genetic services and follow-up care are currently suboptimal, possibly caused by inadequate exchange of information. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to gain insight in the process of information exchange between patients diagnosed with LS and their non-genetic (i.e., general practitioner, gastroenterologist, gynaecologist) and genetic (i.e., clinical geneticist or genetic counsellor) health professionals concerning referral for genetic counselling and follow-up care. Participants comprised 13 patients diagnosed with LS (8 index patients and 5 of their affected relatives) and 24 health professionals (6 general practitioners, 8 gastroenterologists, 6 gynaecologists and 4 genetic health professionals). Analysis of the interview transcripts was performed in parallel and again after the interviews, following guidelines for qualitative research and using MAXQDA software. The main finding is that patients may ‘get lost’ between health professionals who lack a clear overview of their own and each other’s role and responsibilities in the referral and follow-up care for patients with possible LS. Education of non-genetic health professionals and optimisation of communication between health professionals might help to enable more timely diagnosis of LS and allow patients to address their doubts and questions to the most appropriate healthcare professional.

Knowledge, perceptions and confidence of physicians and pharmacists towards pharmacogenetics practice in Kuwait

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetics practice has been successfully implemented in many developed countries to enhance personalized medicine and improve clinical and economic outcomes. An understanding of healthcare providers' knowledge, perceptions, confidence towards pharmacogenetics, and their active enrollment with pharmacogenetic testing is essential for test acceptance and utilization. This study was designed to assess physicians' and pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions, and confidence towards pharmacogenetics, determine the preferred learning format for their future education in pharmacogenetics, and identify the barriers to its application in their practice settings.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a pretested self-administered questionnaire on a sample of 629 randomly selected physicians and pharmacists. Descriptive and comparative analyses were used in data analysis.

RESULTS

The response rate was 98.1%. Less than one-tenth of respondents were exposed to pharmacogenetics education or training (8.9%), applied pharmacogenetics testing in their practice (9.4%), or provided patient counselling on the results of the pharmacogenetic testing (9.1%), and over 90% of them were physicians. The overall respondents' mean (SD) total knowledge score percentage was low [45.0% (24)] and there was no significant difference between the physicians and pharmacists scores (p>0.05). Only 16.0% of participants indicated that they felt confident in applying pharmacogenetics in their practice settings. Despite these low levels of knowledge and self-confidence, 70.2% of participants expressed overall positive perceptions towards pharmacogenetics and its clinical implications. These positive overall perceptions were found to be significantly more common among pharmacists compared to physicians (p<0.05). The top two perceived barriers facing the implementation of pharmacogenetics in Kuwait were lack of education or training and clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight important concerns and will aid in the assessment of current pharmacogenetics practice. Also, they will provide further insight in designing future targeted multifaceted interventions to promote the adoption and utilization of pharmacogenetics testing in Kuwait.