The Implementation Chasm Hindering Genome-informed Health Care

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists’ perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours.

Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education.

Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling.

Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.

Organizational perspectives on implementing complex health interventions: clinical genomics in Australia

PURPOSE

Clinical genomics is a complex, innovative medical speciality requiring clinical and organizational engagement to fulfil the clinical reward promised to date. Focus thus far has been on gene discovery and clinicians' perspectives. The purpose of this study was to use implementation science theory to identify organizational barriers and enablers to implementation of clinical genomics along an organizations' implementation journey from Preadoption through to Adoption and Implementation.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

We used a deductive qualitative approach study design drawing on implementation science theory - (1) Translation Science to Population Impact Framework, to inform semi structured interviews with organizational decision-makers collaborating with Australian and Melbourne Genomics, alongside and (2) Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), to guide data analysis.

FINDINGS

We identified evolving organizational barriers across the implementation journey from Preadoption to Implementation. Initially the organizational focus is on understanding the value of clinical genomics (TDF code: belief about consequences) and setting the scene (TDF code: goals) before organizational (TDF codes: knowledge and belief about consequences) and clinician (TDF codes: belief about capability and intentions) willingness to adopt is apparent. Once at the stage of Implementation, leadership and clarity in organizational priorities (TDF codes: intentions, professional identity and emotion) that include clinical genomics are essential prerequisites to implementing clinical genomics in practice. Intuitive enablers were identified (e.g. 'providing multiple opportunities for people to come on board) and mapped hypothetically to barriers.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Attention to date has centred on the barriers facing clinicians when introducing clinical genomics into practice. This paper uses a combination of implementation science theories to begin to unravel the organizational perspectives of implementing this complex health intervention.

Facilitating Genetics Aware Clinical Decision Support: Putting the eMERGE Infrastructure into Practice

This editorial provides context for a series of published case reports in ACI Open by summarizing activities and outputs of joint electronic health record integration and pharmacogenomics workgroups in the NIH-funded electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. A case report is a useful tool to describe the range of capabilities that an IT infrastructure or a particular technology must support. The activities we describe have informed infrastructure requirements used during eMERGE phase III, provided a venue to share experiences and ask questions among other eMERGE sites, summarized potential hazards that might be encountered for specific clinical decision support (CDS) implementation scenarios, and provided a simple framework that captured progress toward implementing CDS at eMERGE sites in a consistent format.

The need for polygenic score reporting standards in evidence-based practice: lipid genetics use case

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Polygenic scores (PGS) are used to quantify the genetic predisposition for heritable traits, with hypothesized utility for personalized risk assessments. Lipid PGS are primed for clinical translation, but evidence-based practice changes will require rigorous PGS standards to ensure reproducibility and generalizability. Here we review applicable reporting and technical standards for dyslipidemia PGS translation along phases of the ACCE (Analytical validity, Clinical validity, Clinical utility, Ethical considerations) framework for evaluating genetic tests.

RECENT FINDINGS

New guidance suggests existing standards for study designs incorporating the ACCE framework are applicable to PGS and should be adopted. One recent example is the Clinical Genomics Resource (ClinGen) and Polygenic Score Catalog's PRS reporting standards, which define minimal requirements for describing rationale for score development, study population definitions and data parameters, risk model development and application, risk model evaluation, and translational considerations, such as generalizability beyond the target population studied.

SUMMARY

Lipid PGS are likely to be integrated into clinical practice in the future. Clinicians will need to be prepared to determine if and when lipid PGS is useful and valid. This decision-making will depend on the quality of evidence for the clinical use of PGS. Establishing reporting standards for PGS will help facilitate data sharing and transparency for critical evaluation, ultimately benefiting the efficiency of evidence-based practice.

Investigating the Adoption of Clinical Genomics in Australia. An Implementation Science Case Study

Despite the overwhelming interest in clinical genomics, uptake has been slow. Implementation science offers a systematic approach to reveal pathways to adoption and a theory informed approach to addressing barriers presented. Using case study methodology, we undertook 16 in-depth interviews with nongenetic medical specialists to identify barriers and enablers to the uptake of clinical genomics. Data collection and analysis was guided by two evidence-based behaviour change models: the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), and the Capability, Opportunity Motivation Behaviour model (COM-B). Our findings revealed the use of implementation science not only provided a theoretical structure to frame the study but also facilitated uncovering of traditionally difficult to access responses from participants, e.g., “safety in feeling vulnerable” (TDF code emotion/COM-B code motivation). The most challenging phase for participants was ensuring appropriate patients were offered genomic testing. There were several consistent TDF codes: professional identity, social influences, and environmental context and resources and COM-B codes opportunity and motivation, with others varying along the patient journey. We conclude that implementation science methods can maximise the value created by the exploration of factors affecting the uptake of clinical genomics to ensure future interventions are designed to meet the needs of novice nongenetic medical specialists.