Patient and provider perspectives on the development of personalized medicine: a mixed-methods approach

Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa

BACKGROUND

Inadequate knowledge among health care providers (HCPs) and parents of affected children limits the understanding and utility of secondary genetic findings (SFs) in under-represented populations in genomics research. SFs arise from deep DNA sequencing done for research or diagnostic purposes and may burden patients and their families despite their potential health importance. This study aims to evaluate the perspective of both groups regarding SFs and their choices in the return of results from genetic testing in the context of orofacial clefts.

METHODS

Using an online survey, we evaluated the experiences of 252 HCPs and 197 parents across participating cleft clinics in Ghana and Nigeria toward the return of SFs across several domains.

RESULTS

Only 1.6% of the HCPs felt they had an expert understanding of when and how to incorporate genomic medicine into practice, while 50.0% agreed that all SFs should be returned to patients. About 95.4% of parents were willing to receive all the information from genetic testing (including SFs), while the majority cited physicians as their primary information source (64%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, parents and providers were aware that genetic testing could help in the clinical management of diseases. However, they cited a lack of knowledge about genomic medicine, uncertain clinical utility, and lack of available learning resources as barriers. The knowledge gained from this study will assist with developing guidelines and policies to guide providers on the return of SFs in sub-Saharan Africa and across the continent.

Perceived benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: Results of a national physician survey

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns.

Patients' perspectives related to ethical issues and risks in precision medicine: a systematic review

Background

Precision medicine is growing due to technological advancements including next generation sequencing techniques and artificial intelligence. However, with the application of precision medicine many ethical and potential risks may emerge. Although, its benefits and potential harms are relevantly known to professional societies and practitioners, patients' attitudes toward these potential ethical risks are not well-known. The aim of this systematic review was to focus on patients' perspective on ethics and risks that may rise with the application of precision medicine.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on 4/1/2023 in the database of PubMed, for the period 1/1/2012 to 4/1/2023 identifying 914 articles. After initial screening, only 50 articles were found to be relevant. From these 50 articles, 24 articles were included in this systematic review, 2 articles were excluded as not in English language, 1 was a review, and 23 articles did not include enough relevant qualitative data regarding our research question to be included. All full texts were evaluated following PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews following the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria.

Results

There were eight main themes emerging from the point of view of the patients regarding ethical concerns and risks of precision medicine: privacy and security of patient data, economic impact on the patients, possible harms of precision medicine including psychosocial harms, risk for discrimination of certain groups, risks in the process of acquiring informed consent, mistrust in the provider and in medical research, issues with the diagnostic accuracy of precision medicine and changes in the doctor-patient relationship.

Conclusion

Ethical issues and potential risks are important for patients in relation to the applications of precision medicine and need to be addressed with patient education, dedicated research and official policies. Further research is needed for validation of the results and awareness of these findings can guide clinicians to understand and address patients concerns in clinical praxis.

Differences in Perception of Healthcare Management between Patients and Professionals

Patient perception and the organizational and safety culture of health professionals are an indirect indicator of the quality of care. Both patient and health professional perceptions were evaluated, and their degree of coincidence was measured in the context of a mutual insurance company (MC Mutual). This study was based on the secondary analysis of routine data available in databases of patients' perceptions and professionals' evaluations of the quality of care provided by MC Mutual during the period 2017-2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Eight dimensions were considered: the results of care, coordination of professionals, trust-based care, clinical and administrative information, facilities and technical means, confidence in diagnosis, and confidence in treatment. The patients and professionals agreed on the dimension of confidence in treatment (good), and the dimensions of coordination and confidence in diagnosis (poor). They diverged on confidence in treatment, which was rated worse by patients than by professionals, and on results, information and infrastructure, which were rated worse by professionals only. This implies that care managers have to reinforce the training and supervision activities of the positive coincident aspects (therapy) for their maintenance, as well as the negative coincident ones (coordination and diagnostic) for the improvement of both perceptions. Reviewing patient and professional surveys is very useful for the supervision of health quality in the context of an occupational mutual insurance company.

Preemptive pharmacogenetic testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: a qualitative study of barriers to implementation

Background

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing for germline variants in the DPYD and UGT1A1 genes can be used to guide fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan dosing, respectively. Despite the known association between PGx variants and chemotherapy toxicity, preemptive testing prior to chemotherapy initiation is rarely performed in routine practice.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study of oncology clinicians to identify barriers to using preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Each participant completed a semi-structured interview informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach.

Results

Participants included sixteen medical oncologists and nine oncology pharmacists from one academic medical center and two community hospitals in Pennsylvania. Barriers to the use of preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing mapped to four CFIR domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. The most prominent themes included 1) a limited evidence base, 2) a cumbersome and lengthy testing process, and 3) a lack of insurance coverage for preemptive PGx testing. Additional barriers included clinician lack of knowledge, difficulty remembering to order PGx testing for eligible patients, challenges with PGx test interpretation, a questionable impact of preemptive PGx testing on clinical care, and a lack of alternative therapeutic options for some patients found to have actionable PGx variants.

Conclusions

Successful adoption of preemptive PGx-guided chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies will require a multifaceted effort to demonstrate clinical effectiveness while addressing the contextual factors identified in this study.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09171-6.

Primary Care Providers’ Use of Genetic Services in the Southeast United States: Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies

Introduction/Objectives:

Collectively, genetic diseases are not that rare, and with increasing availability of genetics-informed healthcare management, primary care providers (PCPs) are more often asked to screen for or provide genetic services. Previous studies have identified barriers that impact PCPs’ ability to provide genetic services, including limited knowledge, training, and time/resources. This study set out to identify specific barriers limiting genetics service provision by PCPs within the Southeastern Regional Genetics Network (SERN) and resources that would help eliminate those barriers.

Methods:

PCPs were recruited through provider networks and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 coders using MAXQDA software. Thematic analysis was conducted.

Results:

Eleven interviews were conducted. Three predominant themes emerged from the data regarding factors impacting use of genetic services: system-wide factors, provider-specific factors, and patient factors. System-wide barriers included a lack of genetics providers and logistic challenges, which led to some PCPs coordinating referrals with other specialists or independently managing patients. Regarding provider-specific barriers, PCPs reported lack of genetics knowledge making referrals challenging. When possible, many PCPs contacted genetics providers for assistance. When not possible, some PCPs reached out to other colleagues or specialists for guidance. Patient-specific barriers included concerns or lack of information regarding genetics and unmet social needs. Many PCPs provided additional education regarding genetics appointments or testing benefits to their patients. Assistance from genetic counselors, electronic medical record systems that support referral to genetics, prior experience referring to genetics, established communication channels with genetics professionals, and highly motivated patients all facilitated improved collaboration with genetic services. PCPs provided suggestions for future resources to support interactions with genetics, including clear referral guidelines, increased access to genetics providers, improved test ordering processes, increased access to genetic education, and communication systems.

Conclusions:

PCPs face barriers at 3 different levels when engaging with genetic services: systems, providers, and patients. This study identified strategies that PCPs use to address these barriers, which are dependent on individual resources and practice settings. These strategies demonstrate resourcefulness in working to incorporate genetics into clinics operating at maximum capacity. By targeting barriers that uniquely impact providers, systems, and patients, as well as building upon strategies that PCPs are already using, medical providers can support PCPs to help with the provision of genetic services.

Patients' and professionals' views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine development is driven by the possibilities of next generation sequencing, information technology and artificial intelligence and thus, raises a number of ethical questions. Empirical studies have investigated such issues from the perspectives of health care professionals, researchers and patients. We synthesize the results from these studies in this review.

METHODS

We used a systematic strategy to search, screen and assess the literature for eligibility related to our research question. The initial search for empirical studies in five data bases provided 665 different records and we selected 92 of these publications for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted in a spreadsheet and categorized into different topics representing the views on ethical issues in precision medicine.

RESULTS

Many patients and professionals expect high benefits from precision medicine and have a positive attitude towards it. However, patients and professionals also perceive some risks. Commonly perceived risks include: lack of evidence for accuracy of tests and efficacy of treatments; limited knowledge of patients, which makes informed consent more difficult; possible unavailability of access to precision medicine for underprivileged people and ethnic minorities; misuse of data by insurance companies and employers, potential of racial stigmatization due to genetic information; unwanted communication of incidental findings; changes in doctor-patient-relationship through focusing on data; and the problem that patients could feel under pressure to optimize their health.

CONCLUSIONS

National legislation and guidelines already minimize many risks associated with precision medicine. However, from our perspective some problems require more attention. Should hopes for precision medicine's benefits be fulfilled, then the ethical principle of justice would require an unlimited access to precision medicine for all people. The potential for autonomous patients' decisions must be greatly enhanced by improvements in patient education. Harm from test results must be avoided in any case by the highest possible data security level and communication guidelines. Changes in the doctor-patient relationship and the impact of precision medicine on the quality of life should be further investigated. Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine should be further examined, in order to avoid malinvestment.

How practice setting affects family physicians' views on genetic screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Genetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages.

OBJECTIVE

To explore FP attitudes, perceived roles, motivators and barriers, towards GS; and explore similarities and differences between private and public sector FPs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-structured interview guide using existing literature. We interviewed private and public sector FPs recruited by purposive, convenience and snowballing strategies, by telephone or video to theme saturation. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded for themes by two independent researchers with an adjudicator.

RESULTS

Thirty FPs were interviewed (15 private, 15 public). Theme saturation was reached for each group. A total of 12 themes (6 common, 3 from private-practice participants, 3 public-employed participants) emerged. Six common major themes emerged: personal lack of training and experience, roles and relevance of GS to family medicine, reluctance and resistance to adding GS to practice, FP motivations for adoption, patient factors as barrier, and potential solutions. Three themes (all facilitators) were unique to the private group: strong rapport with patients, high practice autonomy, and high patient literacy. Three themes (all barriers) were unique to the public group: lack of control, patients' lower socioeconomic status, and rigid administrative infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

FPs are motivated to incorporate GS but need support for implementation. Policy-makers should consider the practice setting when introducing new screening functions. Strategies to change FP behaviours should be sensitive to their sense of autonomy, and the external factors (either as facilitators or as barriers) shaping FP practices in a given clinical setting.

A pilot comparison of medical records sensitivity perspectives of patients with behavioral health conditions and healthcare providers

This pilot study compares medical record data sensitivity (e.g., depression is sensitive) and categorization perspective (e.g., depression categorized as mental health information) of patients with behavioral health conditions and healthcare providers using a mixed-methods approach employing patient's own EHR. Perspectives of 25 English- and Spanish-speaking patients were compared with providers. Data categorization comparisons resulted in 66.3% agreements, 14.5% partial agreements, and 19.3% disagreements. Sensitivity comparisons obtained 54.5% agreement, 11.9% partial agreement, and 33.6% disagreements. Patients and providers disagreed in classification of genetic data, mental health, drug abuse, and physical health information. Factors influencing patients' sensitivity determination were sensitive category comprehension, own experience, stigma towards category labels (e.g., drug abuse), and perception of information applicability (e.g., alcohol dependency). Knowledge of patients' sensitivity perceptions and reconciliation with providers could expedite the development of granular and personalized consent technology.

Scaling Genetic Counseling in the Genomics Era

The development of massively parallel sequencing-based genomic sequencing tests has increased genetic test availability and access. The field and practice of genetic counseling have adapted in response to this paradigm-shifting technology and the subsequent transition to practicing genomic medicine. While the key elements defining genetic counseling remain relevant, genetic counseling service delivery models and practice settings have evolved. Genetic counselors are addressing the challenges of direct-to-consumer and consumer-driven genetic testing, and genetic counseling training programs are responding to the ongoing increased demand for genetic counseling services across a broadening range of contexts. The need to diversify both the patient and participant groups with access to genetic information, as well as the field of genetic counseling, is at the forefront of research and training program initiatives. Genetic counselors are key stakeholders in the genomics era, and their contributions are essential to effectively and equitably deliver precision medicine.

Definition of Personalized Medicine and Targeted Therapies: Does Medical Familiarity Matter?

Personalized medicine (PM) is increasingly becoming a topic of discussion in public health policies and media. However, there is no consensus among definitions of PM in the scientific literature and the terms used to designate it, with some definitions emphasizing patient-centered aspects and others emphasizing biomedical aspects. Furthermore, terms used to refer to PM (e.g., “pharmacogenomics” or, more often, “targeted therapies”) are diverse and differently used. To our knowledge, no study has apprehended the differences of definition and attitudes toward personalized medicine and targeted therapies according to level of familiarity with the medical field. Our cohort included 349 French students from three different academic fields, which modulated their familiarity level with the medical field. They were asked to associate words either to “personalized medicine” or “target therapies”. Then, they were asked to give an emotional valence to their associations. Results showed that nonfamiliar students perceived PM as more positive than targeted therapies (TT), whereas familiar students showed no difference. Only familiar students defined PM and TT with technical aspects such as genetics or immunology. Further studies are needed in the field in order to determine which other factors could influence the definitions of PM and TT and determine how these definitions could have an impact in a clinical setting.

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.

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.

GP attitudes to and expectations for providing personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study

Background

As part of a pilot randomised controlled trial examining the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, GPs were sent a booklet containing their patient’s genomic risk of melanoma.

Aim

Using this booklet as an example of genomic risk information that might be offered on a population-level in the future, this study explored GP attitudes towards communicating genomic risk information and resources needed to support this process.

Design & setting

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Australian GPs.

Method

The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analysed thematically.

Results

GPs in this sample believed that communicating genomic risk may become a responsibility within primary care and they recommended a shared decisionmaking approach to guide the testing process. Factors were identified that may influence how and when GPs communicate genomic risk information. GPs view genomics-based risk as one of many disease risk factors and feel that this type of information could be applied in practice in the context of overall risk assessment for diseases for which prevention and early detection strategies are available. They believe it is important to ensure that patients understand their genomic risk and do not experience long-term adverse psychological responses. GPs desire clinical practice guidelines that specify recommendations for genomic risk assessment and patient management, point-of-care resources, and risk prediction tools that include genomic and traditional risk factors.

Conclusion

These findings will inform the development of resources for preparing GPs to manage and implement genomic risk information in practice.

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.