Genetics through a primary care lens

The importance of preventative medicine in conjunction with modern day genetic studies

Genetic screening in the primary care setting is the future of preventative medicine. Genetic testing is an important medical tool for assessing various inheritable diseases, conditions, and cancers. The ability to diagnose patients before symptoms surface can help lessen the severity of symptoms and promote quality of life. However, genetic screening can cause psychological distress from the knowledge of test results, in some cases only serving to increase the risk of developing a condition due to stress. Genetic testing can be conducted anytime in life, even before birth. In this review, a compilation of genetic testing's definitions and boundaries, factors influencing an individual's test outcomes, and an overview of a wide variety of diseases, conditions and cancers were collected.

Physician exposure to and attitudes toward advertisements for genetic tests for inherited cancer susceptibility

Commercial marketing materials may serve as a source of information for physicians about genetic testing for inherited cancer susceptibility (GTICS) in addition to medical guidelines, continuing education, and journal articles. The primary purposes of this study were to: (1) determine the percentage of physicians who received advertisements for GTICS early in the diffusion of commercial GTICS (1999-2000); (2) assess associated characteristics; and (3) measure the perceived importance of commercial advertisements and promotions in physicians' decisions to recommend testing to patients. A nationally representative, stratified random sample of 1,251 physicians from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile completed a 15-20 min mixed mode questionnaire that assessed specialty, previous use of genetic tests, practice characteristics, age, and receipt of advertising materials (response rate = 71%). Overall, 27.4% (n = 426) had received advertisements. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with receipt of advertisements included: specialties in obstetrics/gynecology, oncology, or gastroenterology; past GTICS use, and age 50+. One of four felt that advertisements would be important in their decision to recommend GTICS. Study results indicate that physicians, particularly in oncology, obstetrics/gynecology, and gastroenterology, began receiving GTICS advertisements commensurate with the early diffusion of commercially available tests into clinical practice. At that time, one-quarter of the physicians considered advertisements to play an important role in their clinical decision making, suggesting attention to other sources of information and additional factors.

Genetics for targeting disease prevention: diabetes

This article provides an overview of current thinking regarding genetics and diabetes (type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes mellitus),including a selective look at a few implicated gene variants. This article explores how this information might be applied in current and future clinical practice to (1) predict who is at risk for diabetes and its complications, (2) identify and intervene to prevent or delay the development of diabetes in persons at risk, (3) identify patients with diabetes in an early stage and intervene to prevent later complications,and (4) individualize therapy for patients with diabetes to improve outcomes. The article concludes with some general thoughts about genetics and diabetes prevention in the future.

Current Research Promises and Challenges in Behavioral Oncology

The Behavioral Oncology Interest Group of the American Society of Preventive Oncology held a Roundtable session on March 10, 2002, at the American Society of Preventive Oncology annual meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss the current state-of-the-science in behavioral approaches to cancer prevention and control and to delineate priorities for additional research. Four key areas were considered: (a) behavioral approaches to cancer genetic risk assessment and testing; (b) biological mechanisms of psychosocial effects on cancer; (c) the role of risk perceptions in cancer screening adherence; and (d) the impact of tailored and targeted interventions on cancer prevention and control research. The evidence reviewed indicates that behavioral approaches have made significant contributions to cancer prevention and control research. At the same time, there is a need to more closely link future investigations to the underlying base of behavioral science principles and paradigms that guide them. To successfully bridge the gap between the availability of effective new cancer prevention and control technologies and the participants they are meant to serve will require the development of more integrative conceptual models, the incorporation of more rigorous methodological designs, and more precise identification of the individual and group characteristics of the groups under study.

The genomic revolution and the obstetrician/gynaecologist: from societal trends to patient sessions

A major aspect of reaping the benefits of the genome revolution in women's health relates to questions of how we are going to handle this scientific manna of information and potential treatment options while minimizing social exclusion along the lines of race, class and gender. Four society-level scenarios or patterns of diffusion of genomic access are discussed, each with its own set of assumptions and outcomes in terms of equity. Like it or not, the front-line obstetrician/gynaecologist will play a critical role in whether such new information helps either to reduce or to exacerbate discrepancies in health-care status along the lines of race and socio-economic status. Patients must not be denied access to knowledge and information within the genetic counselling session, or to the opportunity to make an informed autonomous decision because of the use of unfamiliar language and conventions of conversation that support power differentials and discourage rapport and empathy. Aspects of communication that are critical to the outcome of the genetic counselling session, such as the level of directness of counselling, physician interruptions of the patient and the power implications of the rhetorical question, are explored. In addition, the special challenges to counsellor neutrality and patient autonomy offered by the longitudinal primary obstetrician/gynaecologist relationship are discussed. Strategies encouraging more effective collaboration and communication between generalist and patient in the counselling session are offered.