GENETIC TESTING IN PRIMARY CARE

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of primary healthcare practitioners in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review on genetics

Individualised treatment, including genetic services, calls for an increased role of primary healthcare practitioners (pHCPs) in diagnosing and caring for individuals with genetic conditions. PHCPs' genetics knowledge and practices must be current to ensure adequate care. A scoping review was conducted to explore peer-reviewed articles on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) of pHCPs concerning genetics, genetic testing, and genetic services. English-language human genetics/genomics articles published between January 1990 and April 2022 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were included. Twenty-eight articles from 16 LMICs in five World Health Organisation (WHO)-defined regions met the inclusion criteria and showed a steady increase in publications, with varied contributions by region. The Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) contributed the most articles (n = 8), while the Western Pacific Region (WPR) had the least (n = 2). Brazil published the most articles (n = 6), while ten countries contributed one article each. Fifteen articles included knowledge, 19 included attitudes towards genetics, and eight included genetic practices. The findings indicate that pHCPs in LMICs lack knowledge of genetics and its applications despite their positive outlook towards genetic services. Barriers such as limited resources, financial constraints, and cultural or religious beliefs hinder access to genetic services. Enhancing pHCPs' genetics education is vital for improving care for those affected by genetic conditions. The scarcity of literature in LMICs emphasises the need for research on educational interventions to improve patient outcomes and family support.

Genetic Data Governance in Japanese Hospitals

The storage and access of genetic testing results have unique considerations for medical records. Initially, genetic testing was limited to patients with single gene diseases. Genetic medicine and testing have expanded, as have concerns about appropriately handling genetic information. In this study, we surveyed the management of genetic information in general hospitals in Japan using a questionnaire on access restrictions. Our questions included whether any other medical information was managed in a unique way. We identified 1037 hospitals designated for clinical training located throughout Japan and received responses from 258 hospitals, and 191 reported that they handle genetic information and results of genetic tests. Of the 191 hospitals that handle genetic information, 112 hospitals implement access restrictions to genetic information. Seventy-one hospitals, one of which uses paper medical records rather than electrical medical records, do not enforce access restrictions. For eight hospitals, it was not known whether access restrictions were enforced or not. The responses from these hospitals indicated that access restrictions and storage methods varied across institution type (e.g., general vs. university hospitals), institution size, and the presence of a clinical genetics department. Other information, such as infectious disease diagnosis, psychological counseling records, abuse, and criminal history, was also subject to access restriction in 42 hospitals. The disparity in how medical facilities handle sensitive genetic information demonstrates a need for discussion between medical professionals and the general public on the storage of sensitive records, including genetic information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41649-023-00242-9.

General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.

DESIGN

A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

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.

Genetics education in primary care residency training: satisfaction and current barriers

BACKGROUND

Genetics education can be integrated into general care medicine through primary care residency programs. A study of primary care residents was done to evaluate quality, satisfaction, and barriers in genetics education in residency training programs. Thus, providing more evidence for the necessity for its development and progress.

METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive self-administered questionnaire survey was delivered to four primary care West Virginia University (WVU) residency training programs in 2020-2021. The anonymous 14-item survey included the following questionnaire domains: general data, genetics training satisfaction, and genetics education barriers.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 52% (70/123) and 59 participants completed the survey. Overall, respondents viewed genetic education as critical to their chosen specialty (90%). Trainees at all educational levels obtained their education mostly from class based educational curricula (77% from lectures, 65% from didactic and 49% from grand rounds). The majority of survey respondents indicated insufficient experience with genetic patient care (34% ward genetic consultation, 5% clinic experience, 0% genetic department rotation). The percentage of residents who were satisfied with genetic topics were as follows: basic genetics (57%), capturing family history (82%), initiating basic genetic workup (15%), a basic understanding of the genetic report (23%), basic management surveillance in the genetic patient (18%), understanding the genetic referral and explaining it to a patient (47%). Residents reported barriers to genetic interest included complexity of the field (87%), followed by limited utility of genetics testing (41%). The most common suggestions for improving the genetic education component were to provide more lectures (61%), followed by enhanced advertisement of genetic education resources specifically rotations in the genetics department (22%). Other suggestions include the integration of genetic education in inpatient learning (20%) and providing research experience (7%).

CONCLUSION

Primary care residents were satisfied with their genetic knowledge in the classroom and stated a clear need for enhanced hands-on clinical skills and research experience in their current residency training. The survey suggestions for improvement can enhance primary care residents' genetic training that can lead to advances in rare disease recognition, precision medicine, and improve access to genetics testing.

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.

Informing Integration of Genomic Medicine Into Primary Care: An Assessment of Current Practice, Attitudes, and Desired Resources

Introduction: Preparing primary care providers for genomic medicine (GM) first requires assessment of their educational needs in order to provide clear, purposeful direction and justify educational activities. More understanding is needed about primary care providers’ perspectives on their role in newer areas of GM and what resources would be helpful in practice. Our objective was to determine family physicians’ (FP) current involvement and confidence in GM, attitudes regarding its clinical value, suggestions for integration of GM into practice, and resources and education required.

Methods: A self-complete anonymous questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,000 FPs in Ontario, Canada in September 2012.

Results: Adjusted response rate was 26% (361/1,365), mean age was 51, and 53% were male. FPs reported many aspects of traditional GM as part of current practice (eliciting family history: 93%; deciding who to refer to genetics: 94%; but few reported confidence (44%, 32% respectively). Newer areas of GM were not part of most FPs’ current practice and confidence was low (pharmacogenetics: 28% part of practice, 5% confident; direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 14%/2%; whole genome sequencing: 8%/2%). Attitudes were mixed with 59% agreeing that GM would improve patient health outcomes, 41% seeing benefits to genetic testing, but only 36% agreeing it was their responsibility to incorporate GM into practice. Few could identify useful sources of genetic information (22%) or find information about genetic tests (21%). Educational resources participants anticipated would be useful included contact information for local genetics clinics (89%), summaries of genetic disorders (86%), and genetic referral (85%) and testing (86%) criteria. About 58% were interested in learning about new genetic technologies. Most (76%) wanted to learn through in-person teaching (lectures, seminars etc.), 66% wanted contact with a local genetic counselor to answer questions, and 59% were interested in a genetics education website.

Conclusion: FPs lack confidence in GM skills needed for practice, particularly in emerging areas of GM. They see their role as making appropriate referrals, are somewhat optimistic about the contribution GM may make to patient care, but express caution about its current clinical benefits. There is a need for evidence-based educational resources integrated into primary care and improved communication with genetic specialists.

First Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary Care Providers

With rapid advances in genetics and genomics, the commercialization and access to new applications has become more widespread and omnipresent throughout biomedical research. Thus, increasingly, more patients will have personal genomic information they may share with primary care providers (PCPs) to better understand the clinical significance of the data. To be able to respond to patient inquiries about genomic data, variant interpretation, disease risk, and other issues, PCPs will need to be able to increase or refresh their awareness about genetics and genomics, and identify reliable resources to use or refer patients. While provider educational efforts have increased, with the rapid advances in the field, ongoing efforts will be needed to prepare PCPs to manage patient needs, integrate results into care, and refer as indicated.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Regarding Genetic Testing and Genetic Counselors in Jordan: A Population-Based Survey

Genetic testing has a potential in the prevention of genetic diseases, particularly in communities with high rates of consanguineous marriage. Therefore, knowledge, practice, and attitudes of the public in Jordan regarding genetic testing were investigated. Individuals (N = 3,196) were questioned about the concepts of genetic testing and genetic counselors, if they underwent any genetic tests, the type of test, the method of consenting to the test, as well as their level of satisfaction with the privacy of the genetic testing service. The likelihood of pursuing predictive genetic testing for cancer was also investigated. Although almost 70 % of respondents knew the term "genetic testing," only 18 % had undergone genetic testing, primarily the mandatory premarital test. In addition, there was a lack of general knowledge about genetic counselors. Many of those who had genetic testing (45 %) indicated they did not go through a consent process, and a lack of consent was significantly related to dissatisfaction with the privacy of the service. Approximately 55 % of respondents indicated they would potentially pursue predictive genetic testing for cancer. Going for routine health checkups was not significantly correlated with either actual or potential uptake of genetic testing, suggesting health care providers do not play an influential role in patients' testing decisions. Our results show a gap between the knowledge and uptake of genetic testing and may help to guide the design of effective strategies to initiate successful genetic counseling and testing services.

Patient and provider attitudes toward genomic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility: a mixed method study

BACKGROUND

The strong association between family history and prostate cancer (PCa) suggests a significant genetic contribution, yet specific highly penetrant PCa susceptibility genes have not been identified. Certain single-nucleotide-polymorphisms have been found to correlate with PCa risk; however uncertainty remains regarding their clinical utility and how to best incorporate this information into clinical decision-making. Genetic testing is available directly to consumers and both patients and healthcare providers are becoming more aware of this technology. Purchasing online allows patients to bypass their healthcare provider yet patients may have difficulty interpreting test results and providers may be called upon to interpret results. Determining optimal ways to educate both patients and providers, and strategies for appropriately incorporating this information into clinical decision-making are needed.

METHODS

A mixed-method study was conducted in Utah between October 2011 and December 2011. Eleven focus group discussions were held and surveys were administered to 23 first-degree relatives of PCa patients living in Utah and 24 primary-care physicians and urologists practicing in Utah to present specific information about these assessments and determine knowledge and attitudes regarding health implications of using these assessments.

RESULTS

Data was independently coded by two researchers (relative Kappa = .88; provider Kappa = .77) and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results indicated differences in attitudes and behavioral intentions between patient and provider. Despite the test's limitations relatives indicated interest in genetic testing (52%) while most providers indicated they would not recommend the test for their patients (79%). Relatives expected providers to interpret genetic test results and use results to provide personalized healthcare recommendations while the majority of providers did not think the information would be useful in patient care (92%) and indicated low-levels of genetic self-efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Although similarities exist, discordance between provider and patient attitudes may influence the effective translation of novel genomic tests into clinical practice suggesting both patient and provider perceptions and expectations be considered in development of clinical decision-support tools.

The Impact of Genetic Testing and Genetic Information on Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in North America

This chapter discusses the impact of genetic testing and genetic information. It proposes a framework that facilitates a critical analysis of the ethical, legal, and social issues of genetic testing. The ethical effects include privacy infringement, genetic discrimination, misleading advertisement, psychological impact, and individual autonomy. The legal impacts embrace consistent terminology, referral guidelines, patent wars, and new legislations. The social effects pertain to inequality, higher insurance fees, tax burden, and fear of new eugenics. Information and communication technologies dramatically augment the effect of genetic testing on these outcomes. This chapter argues that information and communication technologies and rapid advances in genetics challenge the existing legislation systems in North America. Therefore, policy-makers need to address the tension between the potential benefits and harms of genetic testing and genetic information.

Anticipating the arrival of low-penetrance genetic testing to primary care medicine

Primary prevention is a pillar of primary care medicine. Furthermore, the identification of commonly occurring genetic mutations that confer only modest increases in disease risk (i.e., low-penetrance mutations or LPMs) is expanding our conception of how genetic testing supports prevention goals. To date, most predictive genetic testing has focused on identifying the minority of patients who carry mutations that significantly increase their risk for developing future disease (i.e., high-penetrance mutations or HPMs). Genetic tests for LPMs are more similar in structure and purpose to commonly used biomarker tests like lipid testing than to HPM testing. In the primary care setting, LPM testing will likely be presented to patients as one part of a multifactorial risk assessment that contains only a small amount of genetics-specific information. Consequently, preparing primary care clinicians for the anticipated use of LPM genetic tests will not require development of a completely new skill set but rather a re-conceptualization of both genetic testing and biomarker evaluation for primary prevention.

"Is it really worth it to get tested?": primary care patients' impressions of predictive SNP testing for colon cancer

Despite significant progress in genomics research over the past decade, we remain years away from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care. As an initial step toward the implementation of genomic-based medicine, we explored primary care patients' ideas about genomic testing for common complex diseases to help develop future patient education materials and interventions to communicate genomic risk information. We conducted a mixed-methods study with participants from a large primary care clinic. Within four focus groups, we used a semi-structured discussion guide and administered brief pre- and post- discussion quantitative surveys to assess participants' interest, attitudes, and preferences related to testing and receipt of test results. Prior to the discussion, moderators presented a plain-language explanation of DNA and genetics, defined "SNP", and highlighted what is known and unknown about the risks associated with testing for SNPs related to colorectal cancer risk. We used the NVIVO 8 software package to analyze the transcripts from the focus group discussions. The majority of participants (75 %) were "very" or "somewhat interested" in receiving information from a colon cancer SNP test, even after learning about and discussing the small and still clinically uncertain change in risk conferred by SNPs. Reported interest in testing was related to degree of risk conferred, personal risk factors, family history, possible implications for managing health /disease prevention and curiosity about genetic results. Most people (85 %) preferred that genetic information be delivered in person by a healthcare or genetics professional rather than through print materials or a computer. These findings suggest that patients may look to genetic counselors, physicians or other healthcare professionals as gatekeepers of predictive genomic risk information.

Prenatal healthcare providers' Gaucher disease carrier screening practices

PURPOSE

Gaucher disease carrier screening is controversial in the medical community. The goal of this study was to explore current Gaucher disease carrier screening practices of prenatal healthcare providers.

METHODS

Prenatal healthcare providers were invited by email to complete an electronic-based survey.

RESULTS

A total of 1,454 prenatal healthcare providers, including 209 genetic counselors, 450 midwives, and 795 physicians, completed the study. The majority of genetic counselors (n = 208/209, >99%), physicians (n = 415/450, 92%), and midwives (n = 634/795, 80%) currently offer Jewish ancestry disease carrier screening to couples in whom one or both partners are Jewish. Of providers who offer Jewish ancestry disease screening, the majority of genetic counselors (n = 199/208, 96%) and physicians (n = 352/415, 85%) always or sometimes offer Gaucher disease screening whereas the majority of midwives (n = 357/634, 56%) never offer Gaucher disease screening.

CONCLUSION

This study presents the first report of Gaucher disease carrier screening practices of the prenatal healthcare providers in North America. Our results indicate that Gaucher disease carrier screening is being offered at a high rate within the scope of Jewish ancestry-based carrier screening. This may highlight a need to move away from the debate as to whether Gaucher disease carrier screening should be offered and, instead, focus on how best to provide Gaucher disease carrier screening services.

Educational needs of primary care physicians regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing

To assess the educational needs of North Carolina primary care physicians (PCPs) about direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, surveys were mailed to 2,402 family and internal medicine providers in North Carolina. Out of 382 respondents, 323 (85%) felt unprepared to answer patient questions and 282 (74%) reported wanting to learn about DTC genetic testing. A total of 148 (39%) were aware of DTC genetic testing. Among these, 63 (43%) thought DTC genetic testing was clinically useful. PCPs who felt either unprepared to answer patient questions (OR = 0.354, p = 0.01) or that DTC genetic testing was clinically useful (OR = 5.783, p = 0.00) were more likely to want to learn about DTC genetic testing. PCPs are interested in learning about DTC genetic testing, but are mostly unaware of DTC testing and feel unprepared to help patients with DTC testing results. Familiar and trusted channels that provide the information and tools PCPs need to help answer patient's questions and manage their care should be used when creating educational programs.

Implementation outcomes of a multiinstitutional web-based ethical, legal, and social implications genetics curriculum for primary care residents in three specialties

PURPOSE

Medical genetics lends itself to disseminated teaching methods because of mismatches between numbers of physicians having patients with genetic disorders and availability of genetic specialists.

METHOD

During 3 years, we implemented an interactive, web-based curriculum on ethical, legal, and social implications in medical genetics for primary care residents in three specialties at three institutions. Residents took five (of 10) cases and three (of five) tutorials that varied by specialty. We assessed changes in self-efficacy (primary outcome), knowledge, application, and viewpoints.

RESULTS

Overall enrollment was 69% (279/403). One institution did not complete implementation and was dropped from pre-post comparisons. We developed a six-factor ethical, legal, and social implications self-efficacy scale (Cronbach α = 0.95). Baseline self-efficacy was moderate (71/115; range: 23-115) and increased 15% after participation. Pre-post knowledge scores were high and unchanged. Residents reported that this curriculum covered ethical, legal, and social implications/genetics better than their usual curricula. Most (68-91%) identified advantages, especially in providing flexibility and stimulating self-directed learning. After participation, residents reported creating learning goals (66%) and acting on those goals (62%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ethical, legal, and social implications genetics curricular participation led to modest self-efficacy gains. Residents reported that the curriculum covered unique content areas, had advantages over traditional curriculum, and that they applied ethical, legal, and social implications content clinically. We share lessons from developing and implementing this complex web-based curriculum across multiple institutions.

Technology assessment and resource allocation for predictive genetic testing: a study of the perspectives of Canadian genetic health care providers

BACKGROUND

With a growing number of genetic tests becoming available to the health and consumer markets, genetic health care providers in Canada are faced with the challenge of developing robust decision rules or guidelines to allocate a finite number of public resources. The objective of this study was to gain Canadian genetic health providers' perspectives on factors and criteria that influence and shape resource allocation decisions for publically funded predictive genetic testing in Canada.

METHODS

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 senior lab directors and clinicians at publically funded Canadian predictive genetic testing facilities. Participants were drawn from British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Given the community sampled was identified as being relatively small and challenging to access, purposive sampling coupled with snowball sampling methodologies were utilized.

RESULTS

Surveyed lab directors and clinicians indicated that predictive genetic tests were funded provincially by one of two predominant funding models, but they themselves played a significant role in how these funds were allocated for specific tests and services. They also rated and identified several factors that influenced allocation decisions and patients' decisions regarding testing. Lastly, participants provided recommendations regarding changes to existing allocation models and showed support for a national evaluation process for predictive testing.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that largely local and relatively ad hoc decision making processes are being made in relation to resource allocations for predictive genetic tests and that a more coordinated and, potentially, national approach to allocation decisions in this context may be appropriate.

Clinician perspectives about molecular genetic testing for heritable conditions and development of a clinician-friendly laboratory report

The use of molecular genetic tests for heritable conditions is expected to increase in medical settings, where genetic knowledge is often limited. As part of a project to improve the clarity of genetic test result reports to minimize misunderstandings that could compromise patient care, we sought input about format and content from practicing primary care clinicians. In facilitated workgroup discussions, clinicians from pediatric, obstetrics-gynecology, and family practice provided their perspectives about molecular genetic testing with a focus on the laboratory reporting of test results. Common principles for enhancing the readability and comprehension of test result reports were derived from these discussions. These principles address the presentation of patient- and test-specific information, the test result interpretation, and guidance for future steps. Model test result reports for DNA-based cystic fibrosis testing are presented that were developed based on workgroup discussions, previous studies, and professional guidelines. The format of these model test reports, which are applicable to a variety of molecular genetic tests, should be useful for communicating essential information from the laboratory to health care professionals.

Primary care physicians' willingness to offer a new genetic test to tailor smoking treatment, according to test characteristics

Emerging pharmacogenetics research may improve clinical outcomes for common complex conditions typically treated in primary care settings. Physicians' willingness to offer genetically-tailored treatments to their patients will be critical to realizing this potential. According to recent research, it is likely that genotypes used to tailor smoking will have pleiotropic associations with other addictions and diseases, and may have different frequencies across populations. These additional features may pose an additional barrier to adoption. To assess physicians' willingness to offer a new test to individually tailor smoking treatment according to specific test characteristics, we conducted a national mailed survey of 2,000 U.S. primary care physicians (response rate: 62.3%). Physicians responded to a baseline scenario describing a new test to tailor smoking treatment, and three additional scenarios describing specific test characteristics based on published research; there was random assignment to one of two survey conditions in which the test was described as a genetic or non-genetic test. Our findings indicate physicians' self-reported likelihood (0-100 scale) that they would offer a new test to tailor smoking cessation treatment ranged from 69%-78% across all scenarios. Relative to baseline scenario responses, physicians were significantly less likely to offer the test when informed that the same genotypes assessed for treatment tailoring: (1) may also identify individuals predisposed to become addicted to nicotine (p<.001), (2) differ in frequency by race (p<.004), and (3) may have associations with other conditions (e.g., alcohol and cocaine addiction, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ADHD and Tourette Syndrome) (p<.01). Describing a new test to individually tailor smoking treatment as a "genetic" versus non-genetic test significantly reduced physicians' likelihood of offering the test across all scenarios, regardless of specific test characteristics (p<.0007). Effective education of primary care physicians will be critical to successful integration of promising new pharmacogenetic treatment strategies for smoking.

Assessing educational priorities in genetics for general practitioners and specialists in five countries: factor structure of the Genetic-Educational Priorities (Gen-EP) scale

PURPOSE

A scale assessing primary care physicians' priorities for genetic education (The Gen-EP scale) was developed and tested in five European countries. The objective of this study was to determine its factor structure, to test scaling assumptions and to determine internal consistency.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 3686 practitioners (general practitioners, gyneco-obstetricians, pediatricians) sampled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom. We first determined the factor structure of the Gen-EP scale (30 items) on the whole sample. Scaling assumptions were then tested on each country using multitrait scaling analysis. Internal consistency was assessed across the five countries.

RESULTS

Six factors were identified accounting for 63.3% of the variance of the items. They represented the following priorities for genetic education: "Genetics of Common Diseases"; "Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues"; "Approaching Genetic Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice"; "Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations"; "Techniques and Innovation in Genetics" and "Psychosocial and Counseling Issues." In each country, convergent and discriminant validity were satisfactory. Internal-consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were all above the acceptable threshold (0.70).

CONCLUSION

The Gen-EP scale could be a helpful instrument in different countries to organize and evaluate the impact of genetic educational programs for primary care providers.

Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners' educational priorities in European countries

PURPOSE

To assess how general practitioners (GPs) from European countries prioritized their genetic educational needs according to their geographic, sociodemographic, and educational characteristics.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey, random and total samples of GPs in five European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom), mailed questionnaires;

OUTCOME

Genetic Educational Priority Scale (30 items; six subscores).

RESULTS

A total 1168 GPs answered. Priorities differed (P < 0.001) but were consistently ranked across the countries. Previous education had a marginal effect on priorities. Women gave higher priorities than men to Genetics of Common Disorders (adjusted odds ratio [OR adj], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.8), Psychosocial and Counseling Issues (OR adj, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), and Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues (OR adj, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), but lower than men to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (OR adj, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9). Older physicians gave higher priorities to Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations (OR adj, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), and to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (OR adj: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), compared with their younger colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS

Expressed genetic educational needs vary according to the countries and sociodemographics. In accordance, training could be more focused on genetics of common disorders and on how to approach genetic risk in clinical practice rather than on ethics, new technologies, or basic concepts.

Mentoring nurses in familial cancer risk assessment and counseling: lessons learned from a formative evaluation

BACKGROUND

As familial cancer genetic services moves into community practice increased numbers of trained health professionals are needed to counsel individuals seeking cancer risk information. Nurses have been targeted to provide cancer risk assessment and counseling. To help prepare nurses for this role, a 5-day training in familial cancer risk assessment and counseling followed by a long-distance mentorship to support continued skill development in the work environment was conducted by Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.

METHODS

Four cohorts (N = 41) have completed the training and were randomized to either an immediate or delayed mentorship. A formative evaluation assessed the nurse's ability to consult with other genetic health professionals and build self-efficacy in counseling skills via responses to questionnaire. A post-mentorship interview evaluated the usefulness, timing and length of the mentorship.

RESULTS

For both groups, there was a statistically significant improvement in self-efficacy for all skills from baseline to 6 months and an increased number of nurses consulting with genetic health professionals. All the nurses reported the value of the mentorship and those with less cancer risk counseling experience prior to the training needed support and resources for further skill and program development. Lessons learned from this formative evaluation are provided.

Genetic and environmental risk assessment for colorectal cancer risk in primary care practice settings: a pilot study

PURPOSE

The assessment of genetic variants and environmental exposures (i.e., genetic and environmental risk assessment) may permit individualized risk stratification for common diseases as part of routine care. A pilot study was conducted to assess the uptake of, and response to, testing for colorectal cancer risk among average risk patients in primary care practice settings.

METHODS

Physicians in primary care practices identified patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening and referred them to the study. Research staff administered a baseline survey to consenting patients. At a scheduled office visit, participants underwent decision counseling with a trained nurse educator to facilitate informed decision making about being tested for methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase status and red blood cell folate level. Combined assessment can stratify colorectal cancer risk. Test results were disclosed within 2 weeks after the visit. Postvisit and 1-month endpoint surveys were administered. Univariable analyses of survey data were performed to assess changes from baseline in genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening-related knowledge and perceptions.

RESULTS

Of the 57 patients who were referred to the study, 25 (44%) consented to participate, and all but one were tested. Participant knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening, perceived colorectal cancer screening response efficacy, and perceived social support for colorectal cancer screening increased significantly from baseline. Participants reported low levels of intrusive thoughts about CRC.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge and favorable perceptions of colorectal cancer screening increased, as did knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment, after exposure to the study intervention. Further research is needed to assess genetic and environmental risk assessment uptake and impact at the population level.

Genetics and genetic counseling: Practices and opinions of primary care physicians in Turkey

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the educational needs of physicians relating to genetics and genetic counseling in the Denizli region of Turkey.

METHODS

Data were collected by questionnaire about physicians' approaches to genetics and genetic counseling.

RESULTS

A total of 60 (60.0%) of 100 physicians working in Denizli province returned a questionnaire. Physicians described "their most knowledgeable subjects" in basic genetic information as chromosome abnormalities (41.8%), in genetic disorders as xeroderma pigmentosum (80.0%), and in genetic counseling as directing the parents of and couples with a risk for having a child affected by a genetic disease to an expert or a genetic counseling center (94.8%). Only 20.7% knew the ethical regulations and techniques related to genetic counseling. Physicians thought that they did not have sufficient knowledge about genetics or genetic counseling, and 83.9% would like to attend an educational course.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of this study, a genetics course is planned for physicians so they can actively participate in the prevention and early diagnosis of genetic diseases.

Lost in transition: challenges in the expanding field of adult genetics

It is increasingly clear that medical genetics has broad relevance in adult clinical medicine. More adult patients with genetic conditions are being recognized, genetic testing for adult-onset genetic conditions is expanding, and children with genetic conditions are now more likely to survive to adulthood. While the number of patients who could benefit from medical genetic services increases, adult care providers are less well educated about clinical genetics and are not sufficiently prepared to meet the growing needs of this population. Genetics professionals may also be ill-suited for this challenge, since geneticists and genetic counselors have traditionally had greater experience in pediatric and prenatal settings. Communication between primary care physicians who treat adults and the genetics community is currently suboptimal and the identification and subsequent referral of adult patients for genetic services need improvement. Finally, published guidelines that address how to deliver genetic services to adult patients are unavailable for many genetic conditions. In this article we address the challenges of transitioning genetics services from traditional, and largely pediatric-based models to paradigms that can best address the needs of adult patients with genetic conditions. Potential solutions and the practicality of implementation of a team-based approach to adult genetic medicine, including the application of genetic counseling, are also discussed.

Genetic testing and the family

The family experience of genetic testing is explored in this article. Two family stories are presented to illustrate how families define and manage the ethical and social issues that emerge during 2 types of genetic testing: mutation analysis for Huntington's disease and genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. These 2 families were purposefully selected because their stories exemplify the complexity of the genetic testing experience. In addition, the story of the family living with Huntington's disease shows how negative consequences can occur for the individual tested, other family members, the marital relationship, and the family system, even when the test results indicate that the individual does not carry a deleterious gene mutation. Both of the families presented in this article participated in an ongoing study, Family Experience of Genetic Testing: Ethical Dimensions , in which 118 family members from 67 families have participated. The guiding framework for this research was the family management style framework developed and refined by Knafl and colleagues.

Defining the opportunity for pharmacogenetic intervention in primary care

Pharmacogenetics (PG), the study of human genome function and its effects on drug response, represents an exciting approach for reducing adverse drug events and increasing therapeutic efficacy. However, there is no clear information of the potential impact of PG in the primary care setting. Therefore, a study was conducted to determine the frequency of use of medications under PG influence, including 16 PG adverse drug reaction (ADR)-associated medications, in the primary care setting. Patients and methods: A cohort of 607 consecutive patients was accrued over a 3-month period from three primary care practices. Patients were asked to answer a verbal survey of demographics and medication use during the past 12 months. The survey specifically evaluated 16 drugs known to commonly cause ADRs and undergo metabolism by polymorphic enzymes. Patients also disclosed information on all other medication use in the last year. Medication use was verified by chart review. The primary outcome was the frequency of medication use. Results: Among the 16 ADR-associated medications, patients used analgesics (88.5%), antihypertensives (14.3%) and antidepressants (9.6%) most commonly. Overall, 28.6% of patients took more than one of the PG ADR-associated medications. Neither gender nor race appeared to influence the frequency of use of these medications (p = 0.5 and p = 0.08, respectively). Patients taking one or more of the drugs were older (p < 0.001). More patients seen for a chronic visit took one or more of the ADR-associated drugs than patients seen for an acute visit (35.8 versus 18.5%, p < 0.001). Discussion: This is the first attempt to describe the potential role of pharmacogenetics in the primary care setting. The findings indicate that at least one in four primary care patients take at least one medication that commonly causes adverse drug reactions due to genetic variability in drug metabolism, indicating that there is a potential role of pharmacogenomics in primary care. Nearly every patient was on a medication with putative PG association. Conclusions: Studies of the ability of PG should not be limited to medical subspecialties, as there is a great potential impact of PG on the primary care setting.

Earlier Diagnosis of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: Importance of Family History and Implications for Cardiovascular and Renal Complications

BACKGROUND

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is a common and serious cause of hereditary renal disease. The emerging possibilities to intervene early in the disease course elevate the importance of both accurate and early diagnosis of ADPKD. Family history analysis is a simple and inexpensive approach to identifying individuals at risk for ADPKD. We hypothesized that advances in knowledge of and potential interventions for ADPKD have led to increased use of family history screening.

METHODS

We distributed surveys to 1,527 subjects from our ADPKD research database to determine the extent to which examination of family history was used to diagnose ADPKD, by birth cohort.

RESULTS

Six hundred thirty-seven subjects with ADPKD (42%) completed and returned surveys. Family history analysis led to the initial ADPKD diagnosis in 49% of all subjects overall. In the birth-cohort analysis, ADPKD was more likely to have been diagnosed in individuals born between 1951 and 1974 because of family history (55% versus 38%; P < 0.0002) and patients were younger at diagnosis (27 versus 39 years; P < 0.0001) than individuals born before 1951.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of subjects with ADPKD, we found increased use of family history analysis as a tool for diagnosing ADPKD and earlier age of diagnosis in the more recent birth cohort. This trend may reflect increased overall awareness of ADPKD by physicians, as well as encouraging hypertension and proteinuria treatment outcome data that may depend on intervening early in the course of disease.

Gene expression profiling and breast cancer care: What are the potential benefits and policy implications?

PURPOSE

Gene expression profiling has been proposed as an alternative to clinical guidelines to identify high-risk patients for adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the outcomes associated with gene expression profiling are not clear, and guidelines for the appropriate use of genomic technologies have not been established.

METHODS

We developed a decision analytic model to evaluate the incremental cost and quality-adjusted life years of gene expression profiling versus NIH clinical guidelines in a hypothetical cohort of premenopausal early stage breast cancer patients 44 years of age. We conducted empirical analyses and identified literature-based data to inform the model, and performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate uncertainty in the results. We interpreted the implications of our findings for treatment guidelines and policies.

RESULTS

Use of gene expression profiling resulted in an absolute 5% decrease in the proportion of cases of distant recurrence prevented, 0.21 fewer quality-adjusted life years, and a cost savings of USD 2882. The chosen test cutoff value to identify a tumor as poor prognosis and the cost of adjuvant chemotherapy were the most influential parameters in the analysis, but our findings did not change substantially in sensitivity analyses. Regardless of the test cutoff used to identify a poor prognosis tumor, the gene expression profiling assay studied in our analysis, at its current level of performance, did not attain the threshold sensitivity (95%) necessary to produce equal or greater quality-adjusted life years than NIH guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of gene expression profiling in breast cancer care holds great promise, our analysis suggests additional refinement and validation are needed before use in clinical practice.