Proposed outcomes measures for state public health genomic programs

An innovative framework to determine the implementation level of personalized medicine: A systematic review

Background

Personalized medicine (PM) is now the new frontier in patient care. The application of this new paradigm extends to various pathologies and different patient care phases, such as diagnosis and treatment. Translating biotechnological advances to clinical routine means adapting health services at all levels is necessary.

Purpose

This article aims to identify the elements for devising a framework that will allow the level of PM implementation in the country under study to be quantitatively and qualitatively assessed and that can be used as a guideline for future implementation plans.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The research question was: What are the domains for determining the level of implementation of PM at the national level? The domains for assessing the degree of PM implementation, which would form the framework, were established.

Results

19 full-text studies that met the inclusion criteria were peer-selected in the systematic review. From all the studies that were included, 37 elements-encompassed in 11 domains-were extracted for determining the degree of PM implementation. These domains and their constituent elements comprise the qualitative and quantitative assessment framework presented herein. Each of the elements can be assessed individually. On the other hand, the domains were standardized to all have the same weight in an overall assessment.

Conclusions

A framework has been developed that takes a multi-factorial approach to determine the degree of implementation of PM at the national level. This framework could also be used to rank countries and their implementation strategies according to the score they receive in the application of the latter. It could also be used as a guide for developing future national PM implementation strategies.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022338611, Identifier: CRD42022338611.

Examining interprofessional collaboration in oncogenetic service delivery models for hereditary cancers: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

In a context of limited genetic specialists, collaborative models have been proposed to ensure timely access to high quality oncogenetic services for individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility. Yet, extensive variability in the terminology used and lack of a clear understanding of how interprofessional collaboration is operationalised and evaluated currently constrains the development of a robust evidence base on the value of different approaches used to optimise access to these services. To fill in this knowledge gap, this scoping review aims to systematically unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed by these interventions, and synthesise the evidence available on their implementation, effectiveness and economic impact.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews, a comprehensive literature search will be conducted to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature on collaborative models used for adult patients with, or at increased risk of, hereditary breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancers. An initial search was developed for Medline, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Cochrane and Web of Science on 13 June 2022 and will be complemented by searches in Google and relevant websites. Documents describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of these interventions will be considered for inclusion. Results will be summarised descriptively and used to compare relevant model characteristics and synthesise evidence available on their implementation, effectiveness and economic impact. This process is expected to guide the development of a definition and typology of collaborative models in oncogenetics that could help strengthen the knowledge base on these interventions. Moreover, because we will be mapping the existing evidence on collaborative models in oncogenetics, the proposed review will help us identify areas where additional research might be needed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research does not require ethics approval. Results from this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and conferences.

Structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics: A scoping review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the extent to which structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics, proposed or adapted, are informed by evidence.

METHODS

A systematic approach was used to identify peer-reviewed articles and gray literature to report on 4 research questions: 1. What structured approaches have been proposed to support implementation? 2. To what extent are the structured approaches informed by evidence? 3. How have structured approaches been deployed in the genomic setting? 4. What are the intended outcomes of the structured approaches?

RESULTS

A total of 30 unique structured approaches to implementation were reported across 23 peer-reviewed publications and 11 gray literature articles. Most approaches were process models, applied in the preadoption implementation phase, focusing on a "service" outcome. Key findings included a lack of implementation science theory informing the development/implementation of newly designed structured approaches in the genomic setting and a lack of measures to assess implementation effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified a significant number of structured approaches developed to inform the implementation of genomic medicine into clinical practice, with limited use of implementation science to support the process. We recommend the use of existing implementation science theory and the expertise of implementation scientists to inform the design of genomic programs being implemented into clinical care.

Using a Participatory Approach to Develop Research Priorities for Future Leaders in Cancer-Related Precision Public Health

Precision public health is an emerging discipline combining principles and frameworks of precision health with the goal of improving population health. The development of research priorities drawing on the strengths of precision and public health is critical to facilitate the growth of the discipline to improve health outcomes. We held an interactive workshop during a virtual conference bringing together early-career researchers across public health disciplines to identify research priorities in precision public health. The workshop participants discussed and voted to identify three priority areas for future research and capacity building including 1) enhancing equity and access to precision public health research and resources, 2) improving tools and metrics for evaluation and 3) applying principles of implementation science to support sustainable practices. Participants also developed future objectives for achieving each priority. Future efforts by working groups will continue the process of identifying, revising, and advancing critical research priorities to grow the impact of precision public health.

Current status and future directions of U.S. genomic nursing health care policy

BACKGROUND

As genomic science moves beyond government-academic collaborations into routine healthcare operations, nursing's holistic philosophy and evidence-based practice approach positions nurses as leaders to advance genomics and precision health care in routine patient care.

PURPOSE

To examine the status of and identify gaps for U.S. genomic nursing health care policy and precision health clinical practice implementation.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review and policy priorities analysis to clarify key genomic policy concepts and definitions, and to examine trends and utilization of health care quality benchmarking used in precision health.

FINDINGS

Genomic nursing health care policy is an emerging area. Educating and training the nursing workforce to achieve full dissemination and integration of precision health into clinical practice remains an ongoing challenge. Use of health care quality measurement principles and federal benchmarking performance evaluation criteria for precision health implementation are not developed.

DISCUSSION

Nine recommendations were formed with calls to action across nursing practice workforce and education, nursing research, and health care policy arenas.

CONCLUSIONS

To advance genomic nursing health care policy, it is imperative to develop genomic performance measurement tools for clinicians, purchasers, regulators and policymakers and to adequately prepare the nursing workforce.

Implementing Cancer Genomics in State Health Agencies: Mapping Activities to an Implementation Science Outcome Framework

OBJECTIVE

To show how state health agencies can plan and evaluate activities to strengthen the evidence base for public health genomics, we mapped state cancer genomics activities to the Doyle et al. [Genet Med. 2018;20(9):995-1003] implementation science outcome framework.

METHODS

We identified state health agency activities addressing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome by reviewing project narratives from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cancer Genomics Program funding recipients, leading discussions with state health agencies, and conducting an environmental scan.

RESULTS

State health agencies' cancer genomics activities included developing or adding to state surveillance systems, developing educational materials, bidirectional reporting, promoting health plan policy change, training providers, and promoting recommendations and standards. To address health disparities, programs have tracked group differences, developed culturally appropriate educational materials, and promoted access to services for underserved populations.

CONCLUSION

State health agencies can use the Doyle et al. [Genet Med. 2018;20(9):995-1003] performance objectives and outcome measures to evaluate proposed and ongoing activities. By demonstrating whether activities result in improved outcomes, state health agencies can build the evidence for the implementation of cancer genomics activities.

Leveraging Implementation Science to Address Health Disparities in Genomic Medicine: Examples from the Field

The integration of genomic data into screening, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment for clinical and public health practices has been slow and challenging. Implementation science can be applied in tackling the barriers and challenges as well as exploring opportunities and best practices for integrating genomic data into routine clinical and public health practice.In this article, we define the state of disparities in genomic medicine and focus predominantly on late-stage research findings. We use case studies from genetic testing for cardiovascular diseases (familial hypercholesterolemia) and cancer (Lynch syndrome and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome) in high-risk populations to consider current disparities and related barriers in turning genomic advances into population health impact to advance health equity. Finally, we address how implementation science can address these translational barriers and we discuss the strategic importance of collaborative multi-stakeholder approaches that engage public health agencies, professional societies, academic health and research centers, community clinics, and patients and their families to work collectively to improve population health and reduce or eliminate health inequities.

Developing a genetic services assessment tool to inform quality improvement efforts in state genetic service delivery

PURPOSE

The Institute of Medicine recommended the utilization of metrics to improve quality in health care, although they have rarely been used in genetics. This study developed and tested a set of metrics for a quality assessment tool for genetic services METHODS: A systematic review of literature, guidelines, and consensus statements identified candidate measures for a possible assessment tool. An expert panel conducted a modified Delphi technique to rank the metrics. Ratings were computed to generate a score for each metric, creating a set of metrics for consensus discussions, pilot testing, and feasibility testing in eight Midwestern states.

RESULTS

The panel reduced 61 candidate metrics to 21 for pilot testing in two states, which further limited and refined the set to 16 metrics. These 16 were categorized into five domains: service capacity, access to care, data systems, performance reporting, and workforce. Further feasibility testing in one Regional Genetics Collaborative identified the tool's usefulness and barriers to implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

These quality metrics for both clinical and public health genetics across the lifespan may help medical professionals and policymakers evaluate quality and cost-effectiveness of genetic services on a statewide basis and stimulate outcome-oriented, health services research in medical genetics and genomics.