Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences with Population Genetic Testing Offered Through a Primary Care Network

Patient experiences and perceived value of genetic testing in inherited retinal diseases: a cross-sectional survey

This study evaluated patient experiences with genetic testing for inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) and the association between underlying knowledge, testing outcomes, and the perceived value of the results. An online survey was distributed to adults with IRDs and parents/guardians of dependents with IRDs who had had genetic testing. Data included details of genetic testing, pre- and post- test perceptions, Decision Regret Scale, perceived value of results, and knowledge of gene therapy. Of 135 responses (85% from adults with IRDs), genetic testing was primarily conducted at no charge through public hospitals (49%) or in a research setting (30%). Key motivations for genetic testing were to confirm IRD diagnosis and to contribute towards research. Those who had received a genetic diagnosis (odds ratio: 6.71; p < 0.001) and those self-reported to have good knowledge of gene therapy (odds ratio: 2.69; p = 0.018) were more likely to have gained confidence in managing their clinical care. For over 80% of respondents, knowing the causative gene empowered them to learn more about their IRD and explore opportunities regarding clinical trials. Key genetic counselling information needs include resources for family communications, structured information provision, and ongoing genetic support, particularly in the context of emerging ocular therapies, to enhance consistency in information uptake.

Personalized medicine in a community health system: the NorthShore experience

Genomic and personalized medicine implementation efforts have largely centered on specialty care in tertiary health systems. There are few examples of fully integrated care systems that span the healthcare continuum. In 2014, NorthShore University HealthSystem launched the Center for Personalized Medicine to catalyze the delivery of personalized medicine. Successful implementation required the development of a scalable family history collection tool, the Genetic and Wellness Assessment (GWA) and Breast Health Assessment (BHA) tools; integrated pharmacogenomics programming; educational programming; electronic medical record integration; and robust clinical decision support tools. To date, more than 225,000 patients have been screened for increased hereditary conditions, such as cancer risk, through these tools in primary care. More than 35,000 patients completed clinical genetic testing following GWA or BHA completion. An innovative program trained more than 100 primary care providers in genomic medicine, activated with clinical decision support and access to patient genetic counseling services and digital healthcare tools. The development of a novel bioinformatics platform (FLYPE) enabled the incorporation of genomics data into electronic medical records. To date, over 4,000 patients have been identified to have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene with medical management implications. Over 33,000 patients have clinical pharmacogenomics data incorporated into the electronic health record supported by clinical decision support tools. This manuscript describes the evolution, strategy, and successful multispecialty partnerships aligned with health system leadership that enabled the implementation of a comprehensive personalized medicine program with measurable patient outcomes through a genomics-enabled learning health system model that utilizes implementation science frameworks.

Participation in genetic screening: testing different outreach methods across a diverse hospital system based patient population

Introduction: Genomics has the potential to transform medicine by identifying genetic risk factors that predispose people to certain illnesses. Use of genetic screening is rapidly expanding and shifting towards screening all patients regardless of known risk factors, but research is limited on the success of broad population-level outreach for genetic testing and the effectiveness of different outreach methods across diverse populations. In this study, we tested the effectiveness of Digital Only (emailing and texting) and Brochure Plus Digital (mailed brochure, emailing, and texting) outreach to encourage a diverse patient population to participate in a large hospital system's whole genome sequencing program. Methods: Disproportionate stratified sampling was used to create a study population more demographically diverse than the eligible population and response rates were analyzed overall and by demographics to understand the effectiveness of different outreach strategies. Results: 7.5% of all eligible patients enrolled in the program. While approximately 70% of patients invited to complete genetic testing identified in their EHR as being Hispanic, Black or African America, Asian, or another non-White race, these patients generally enrolled at lower rates than the overall population. Other underrepresented groups had higher enrollment rates including people with Medicaid coverage (8.7%) and those residing in rural areas (10.6%). We found no significant difference in enrollment rates between our Digital-Only and our Brochure Plus Digital outreach approaches in the overall population, but enrollment rates were significantly higher for Asian patients and patients who resided in rural areas in the Brochure Plus Digital group. Across both outreach approaches, links provided in emails were most commonly used for enrollment. Discussion: Our study reveals expected enrollment rates for proactive outreach by a hospital system for genetic testing in a diverse population. As more hospital systems are adopting population-scale genetic testing, these findings can inform future outreach efforts to recruit patients for genetic testing including those patients traditionally underrepresented in genomics.

Patient Perspectives of Barriers and Facilitators for the Uptake of Pharmacogenomic Testing in Veterans Affairs' Pharmacogenomic Testing for the Veterans (PHASER) Program

We applied implementation science frameworks to identify barriers and facilitators to veterans' acceptance of pharmacogenomic testing (PGx), which was made available as a part of clinical care at 25 VA medical centers. We conducted 30 min interviews with veterans who accepted (n = 14), declined (n = 9), or were contemplating (n = 8) PGx testing. Six team members coded one transcript from each participant group to develop the codebook and finalize definitions. Three team members coded the remaining 28 transcripts and met regularly with the larger team to reach a consensus. The coders generated a matrix of implementation constructs by testing status to identify the similarities and differences between accepters, decliners, and contemplators. All groups understood the PGx testing procedures and possible benefits. In the decision-making, accepters prioritized the potential health benefits of PGx testing, such as reducing side effects or the number of medications. In contrast, decliners prioritized the possibilities of data breach or the negative impact on healthcare insurance or Veterans Affairs benefits. Contemplators desired to speak to a provider to learn more before making a decision. Efforts to improve the clarity of data security and the impact on benefits may improve veterans' abilities to make more informed decisions about whether to undergo PGx testing.

Factors Influencing Genetic Screening Enrollment among a Diverse, Community-Ascertained Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Genetic screening for preventable adult-onset hereditary conditions has been proposed as a mechanism to reduce health disparities. Analysis of how race and ethnicity influence decision-making to receive screening can inform recruitment efforts and more equitable population screening design. A study at the University of Washington Medicine that invited unselected patients to participate in genetic screening for pathogenic variation in medically important genes provided an opportunity to evaluate these factors.

METHODS

We analyzed screening enrollee survey data to understand factors most important and least important in decision-making about screening overall and across different race and ethnicity groups. Electronic health record race and ethnicity and survey-reported race and ethnicity were compared to assist with interpretation. Comments provided about reasons for not enrolling in screening were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, learning about disease risk and identifying risk early for prevention purposes were important factors in decision-making to receive screening, and regrets about screening and screening being against one's moral code were not viewed as important. Although racial identity was challenging to assign in all cases, compared to other enrollees, African-American and Asian enrollees considered test accuracy and knowing more about the test to be of greater importance. Three themes emerged related to nonparticipation: benefits do not outweigh risks, don't want to know, and challenges with study logistics.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight important motivators for receiving screening and areas that can be addressed to increase screening interest and accessibility. This knowledge can inform future population screening program design including recruitment and education approaches.

Demographic Characteristics Associated With Perceptions of Personal Utility in Genetic and Genomic Testing: A Systematic Review

Importance

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing in health care has led to recognition that these tests provide personal as well as clinical utility to patients and families. However, available systematic reviews on this topic have not reported the demographic backgrounds of participants in studies of personal utility, leaving generalizability unclear.

Objective

To determine the demographic characteristics of participants in studies examining the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing in health care.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, we utilized and updated the results of a highly cited 2017 systematic review on the personal utility of genetics and genomics, which identified relevant articles published between January 1, 2003, and August 4, 2016. We also used the original methods to update this bibliography with literature published subsequently up to January 1, 2022. Studies were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Eligible studies reported empirical data on the perspectives of patients, family members, and/or the general public in the US on the personal utility of any type of health-related genetic or genomic test. We utilized a standardized codebook to extract study and participant characteristics. We summarized demographic characteristics descriptively across all studies and by subgroup based on study and participant characteristics.

Findings

We included 52 studies with 13 251 eligible participants. Sex or gender was the most frequently reported demographic characteristic (48 studies [92.3%]), followed by race and ethnicity (40 studies [76.9%]), education (38 studies [73.1%]), and income (26 studies [50.0%]). Across studies, participants disproportionately were women or female (mean [SD], 70.8% [20.5%]), were White (mean [SD], 76.1% [22.0%]), had a college degree or higher (mean [SD], 64.5% [19.9%]), and reported income above the US median (mean [SD], 67.4% [19.2%]). Examination of subgroups of results by study and participant characteristics evidenced only small shifts in demographic characteristics.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review examined the demographic characteristics of individual participants in studies of the personal utility of health-related genetic and genomic testing in the US. The results suggest that participants in these studies were disproportionately White, college-educated women with above-average income. Understanding the perspectives of more diverse individuals regarding the personal utility of genetic and genomic testing may inform barriers to research recruitment and uptake of clinical testing in currently underrepresented populations.

Elective genetic testing: Genetics professionals' perspectives and practices

Elective genetic testing (EGT) to identify disease risk in individuals who may or may not meet clinical criteria for testing is increasingly being offered in clinical practice. However, little is known about how EGT is currently implemented and how genetics professionals perceive this type of testing. We conducted a mixed-methods survey study to evaluate genetics professionals' perspectives and attitudes about EGT and describe the current landscape of EGT practices in the United States (U.S.) and Canada. Six clinical geneticists and 131 genetic counselors responded to the online survey, among whom 44% reported offering EGT in their practice. Over 84% of survey respondents agreed that EGT may improve health outcomes and understanding of genotype-phenotype correlations, and 85% agreed that potential risks include result misinterpretation and contribution to economic health disparities. Though most respondents felt comfortable providing pretest (77%) and post-test (86%) counseling for EGT, lack of provider resources (such as time and personnel) and prioritization of diagnostic testing were cited most frequently in free-text responses as reasons for not offering EGT. Of those offering EGT, 88% reported positive overall experiences. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions identified benefits of EGT as expanding access to genetic testing, providing potential health benefits, and providing psychological benefits for patients. Disadvantages included prohibitive costs, limited clinical utility, and strain on resources. Overall, we found that genetics providers perceive both potential benefits and harms of EGT and that those offering this testing had generally positive experiences, although ethical reservations and practical limitations exist.

Investigating Psychological Impact after Receiving Genetic Risk Results-A Survey of Participants in a Population Genomic Screening Program

Genomic screening programs have potential to benefit individuals who may not be clinically ascertained, but little is known about the psychological impact of receiving genetic results in this setting. The current study sought to further the understanding of individuals’ psychological response to receiving an actionable genetic test result from genomic screening. Telephone surveys were conducted with patient-participants at 6 weeks and 6 months post genetic result disclosure between September 2019 and May 2021 and assessed emotional response to receiving results via the FACToR, PANAS, and decision regret scales. Overall, 354 (29.4%) study participants completed both surveys. Participants reported moderate positive emotions and low levels of negative emotions, uncertainty, privacy concern, and decision regret over time. There were significant decreases in negative emotions (p = 0.0004) and uncertainty (p = 0.0126) between time points on the FACToR scale. “Interested” was the highest scoring discrete emotion (T1 3.6, T2 3.3, scale 0−5) but was significantly lower at 6 months (<0.0001). Coupled with other benefits of genomic screening, these results of modest psychological impact waning over time adds support to clinical utility of population genomic screening programs. However, questions remain regarding how to elicit an emotional response that motivates behavior change without causing psychological harm.

Barriers, interventions, and recommendations: Improving the genetic testing landscape

Individual, provider, clinic, and societal level barriers have been shown to undermine the potential impact of genetic testing. The current approach in the primary care setting places an exorbitant burden on both providers and patients. Current literature provides insight into how to address barriers across multiple levels (patient, provider, clinic, system) and at multiple stages in the testing process (identification, referral, counseling, and testing) but interventions have had limited success. After outlining the current approach to genetic testing in the primary care setting, including the barriers that prevent genetic testing uptake and the methods proposed to address these issues, we recommend integrating genetic testing into routine medical care through population-based testing. Success in efforts to increase the uptake of genetic testing will not occur without significant changes to the way genetic services are delivered. These changes will not be instantaneous but are critical in moving this field forward to realize the potential for cancer risk genetic assessment to reduce cancer burden.

Assessing Vietnamese American patient perspectives on population genetic testing in primary care: A community-engaged approach

Achieving health equity in precision medicine remains a critical challenge because of the continued underrepresentation of non-white populations in research and barriers to genetic services. The goal of this study was to explore Vietnamese American (VA) participant views toward incorporating genetics in routine healthcare to better serve the local VA community within an integrated health system offering primary care-based population genetic testing to adults for conditions that could be prevented or mitigated when detected early. We conducted semi-structured interviews from August–September 2021, with 22 individuals receiving primary care who self-identified as Vietnamese or VA, and employed rapid qualitative analysis (RQA) to identify key concepts. Community research team members participated in study design, data collection, RQA, and reporting. Findings from the interviews revealed that several participant perceived challenges to genetic testing, which included lack of information, fear of results impact, cost, and privacy concerns. Participants suggested various ways to overcome some of these barriers, such as decreasing the cost of testing, receiving information from a trusted physician, using preferred education strategies in the community, and having convenient access to testing. Study participants also shared a variety of trusted sources they would seek out for advice on genetic testing. This study with VAs identified barriers, facilitators, and messengers to offering genetic testing in a local healthcare context and demonstrated how community-engaged research coupled with RQA is a promising approach for healthcare institutions as they identify needs and tailor strategies for implementing population genetic screening programs in local ethnic communities.

Digital health-enabled genomics: Opportunities and challenges

Digital health solutions, with apps, virtual care, and electronic medical records, are gaining momentum across all medical disciplines, and their adoption has been accelerated, in part, by the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal wearables, sensors, and mobile technologies are increasingly being used to identify health risks and assist in diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of health and disease. Genomics is a vanguard of digital healthcare as we witness a convergence of the fields of genomic and digital medicine. Spurred by the acute need to increase health literacy, empower patients' preference-sensitive decisions, or integrate vast amounts of complex genomic data into the clinical workflow, there has been an emergence of digital support tools in genomics-enabled care. We present three use cases that demonstrate the application of these converging technologies: digital genomics decision support tools, conversational chatbots to scale the genetic counseling process, and the digital delivery of comprehensive genetic services. These digital solutions are important to facilitate patient-centered care delivery, improve patient outcomes, and increase healthcare efficiencies in genomic medicine. Yet the development of these innovative digital genomic technologies also reveals strategic challenges that need to be addressed before genomic digital health can be broadly adopted. Alongside key evidentiary gaps in clinical and cost-effectiveness, there is a paucity of clinical guidelines, policy, and regulatory frameworks that incorporate digital health. We propose a research agenda, guided by learning healthcare systems, to realize the vision of digital health-enabled genomics to ensure its sustainable and equitable deployment in clinical care.

Primary Care Implementation of Genomic Population Health Screening Using a Large Gene Sequencing Panel

To realize the promise of genomic medicine, harness the power of genomic technologies, and capitalize on the extraordinary pace of research linking genomic variation to disease risks, healthcare systems must embrace and integrate genomics into routine healthcare. We have implemented an innovative pilot program for genomic population health screening for any-health-status adults within the largest health system in Vermont, United States. This program draws on key research and technological advances to safely extract clinical value for genomics in routine health care. The program offers no-cost, non-research DNA sequencing to patients by their primary care providers as a preventive health tool. We partnered with a commercial clinical testing company for two next generation sequencing gene panels comprising 431 genes related to both high and low-penetrance common health risks and carrier status for recessive disorders. Only pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants are reported. Routine written clinical consultation is provided with a concise, clinical “action plan” that presents core messages for primary care provider and patient use and supports clinical management and health education beyond the testing laboratory’s reports. Access to genetic counseling is free in most cases. Predefined care pathways and access to genetics experts facilitates the appropriate use of results. This pilot tests the feasibility of routine, ethical, and scalable use of population genomic screening in healthcare despite generally imperfect genomic competency among both the public and health care providers. This article describes the program design, implementation process, guiding philosophies, and insights from 2 years of experience offering testing and returning results in primary care settings. To aid others planning similar programs, we review our barriers, solutions, and perceived gaps in the context of an implementation research framework.

Patients' perspectives of a pharmacist-provided clinical pharmacogenomics service

Aim: To assess the perspectives and experiences of patients who participated in a pharmacist-provided clinical pharmacogenomics (PGx) service. Methods: We conducted individual semistructured interviews with 16 patients who received a pharmacist-provided PGx service. Qualitative data were analyzed to identify pertinent themes. Results: The major themes identified were: heterogeneity of patient PGx experiences and preferences, pharmacists as appropriate providers of PGx services, considerations regarding the use of PGx results in routine healthcare, and perceived applications of PGx testing. Theme-derived considerations included the need to establish appropriate pre-genotyping expectations, individualize patient education, facilitate collaboration with patients' providers and sustainably update patients' PGx information over time. Conclusion: Patient-specific perspectives such as these are important to consider when providing clinical PGx services, with intention of optimizing patient experiences.

The integration of personalized medicine into health systems: progress and a path forward

Tweetable abstract Fueled by technological advancements and the integration efforts of many pioneer health systems, personalized medicine is now being clinically implemented at measurable but incomplete levels system-wide.

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.