Are providers prepared for genomic medicine: interpretation of Direct-to-Consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) results and genetic self-efficacy by medical professionals

A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4 in responses to selected genetics questions

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of ChatGPT 4 (GPT-4) in delivering genetic information about BRCA1, HFE, and MLH1, building on previous findings with ChatGPT 3.5 (GPT-3.5). To focus on assessing the utility, limitations, and ethical implications of using ChatGPT in medical settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A structured survey was developed to assess GPT-4's clinical value. An expert panel of genetic counselors and clinical geneticists evaluated GPT-4's responses to these questions. We also performed comparative analysis with GPT-3.5, utilizing descriptive statistics and using Prism 9 for data analysis.

RESULTS

The findings indicate improved accuracy in GPT-4 over GPT-3.5 (P < .0001). However, notable errors in accuracy remained. The relevance of responses varied in GPT-4, but was generally favorable, with a mean in the "somewhat agree" range. There was no difference in performance by disease category. The 7-question subset of the Bot Usability Scale (BUS-15) showed no statistically significant difference between the groups but trended lower in the GPT-4 version.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The study underscores GPT-4's potential role in genetic education, showing notable progress yet facing challenges like outdated information and the necessity of ongoing refinement. Our results, while showing promise, emphasizes the importance of balancing technological innovation with ethical responsibility in healthcare information delivery.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests and Canadian Genetic Counselors: A Pilot Exploration of Professional Roles in Response to Novel Biotechnologies

The role of genetic counselors is evolving in response to health-related direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT). While there is consensus in the literature that pre- and post-DTC-GT genetic counseling would benefit consumers, genetic counselors have reservations about DTC-GTs, and there is a paucity of research on providing DTC-GT counseling. This pilot quantitative survey is the first study to examine Canadian genetic counselors' views on DTC-GTs and how this disruptive biotechnology affects their role, and consumer informed consent and privacy. Canadian genetic counselors are cognizant of the harm to informed consent and privacy associated with DTC-GT, but are hesitant to engage directly, wary of misusing clinical time and resources. However, counselors are open to producing educational materials on DTC-GTs and collaborating with other stakeholders and the DTC-GT industry to support consumers. In this study, practical considerations for DTC-GT counseling sessions are discussed, including the unique needs of DTC-GT patients and the challenges posed by DTC-GTs to the genetic counseling duty to inform. This research benefits genetic counselors and physicians by examining how best to utilize genetic counselors' skills in the DTC-GT context, to minimize burdens on the healthcare system and support DTC-GT consumers.

Polygenic Scores in the Direct-to-Consumer Setting: Challenges and Opportunities for a New Era in Consumer Genetic Testing

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests have generated considerable scholarly attention and public intrigue. Although the current consumer genetic testing regime relies on the reporting of individual variants of interest to consumers, there has recently been interest in the possibility of integrating polygenic scores (PGS), which aggregate genetic liability for disease across the entire genome. While PGS have thus far been extensively explored as clinical and public health tools, the use of PGS in consumer genetic testing has not yet received systematic attention, even though they are already in use for some consumer genetic tests. In this narrative review, we highlight the ethical, legal, and social implications of the use of PGS in DTC genetic tests and synthesize existing solutions to these concerns. We organize these concerns into three domains: (1) industry variation; (2) privacy and commercialization; and (3) patient safety and risk. While previously expressed concerns in these domains will remain relevant, the emergence of PGS-based DTC genetic tests raises challenges that will require novel approaches.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: an updated systematic review of healthcare professionals' knowledge and views, and ethical and legal concerns

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is becoming increasingly widespread. The aim of this research was to systematically review the literature published on healthcare professionals' knowledge and views about DTC-GT, as an update to a 2012 systematic review. The secondary aim was to assess the knowledge and views of healthcare professionals on the ethical and legal issues pertaining to DTC-GT. A systematic search was performed to identify all relevant studies that have been conducted since 2012. Studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria if they were primary research papers conducted on healthcare professionals about their knowledge and views on health-related DTC-GT. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Medline databases were searched from 2012 to May 2021. Title and abstract were screened, and full texts were reviewed by two study authors independently. New papers included were appraised and data were extracted on study characteristics, knowledge and views on DTC-GT, and ethical and legal issues. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Nineteen new papers were included, along with eight papers from the previous review. There was considerable variation in study participants with differing views, awareness levels, and levels of knowledge about DTC-GT. Genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists generally had more concerns, experience, and knowledge regarding DTC-GT. Ten ethical concerns and four legal concerns were identified. Healthcare professionals' knowledge and experience of DTC-GT, including awareness of DTC-GT ethical and legal concerns, have only minimally improved since the previous review. This emphasises the need for further medical learning opportunities to improve the gaps in knowledge amongst healthcare professionals about DTC-GT.

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.

Genetic testing users in Italy and Germany: Health orientation, health-related habits, and psychological profile

Background

Rapid advances in genomic knowledge and widespread access to the web contributed to the development of genetic services by private companies or medical laboratories. In the European landscape, though, there is not a single coherent regulatory approach to genetic testing (GT). The study aimed to investigate differences and similarities between two populations of GT users, Italians and Germans, in terms of health‐related behaviors, psychological characteristics, and attitudes toward genetic information.

Methods

Ninety‐nine Italian GT users from one private genetic company and 64 Germans GT users from one medical laboratory, completed an ad hoc self‐administered questionnaire.

Results

Results showed significant differences in health‐related behaviors (unhealthy eating behaviors, smoking behaviors, and frequency in medical check‐ups), with Germans reporting higher levels of unhealthy eating habits and smoking behaviors than Italians; Italian users also were more medically controlled. Furthermore, German participants were less willing to change their lifestyle following the GT results compared to Italian participants. Regarding psychological variables, German users felt more confident about their physical well‐being and they seemed more motivated than Italians to avoid becoming unhealthy. Finally, two samples differed in the way they accessed genetic testing (with the Italians guided predominately by a physician in contrast with the Germans who were recommended by friends) and managed genetic testing results (with Italian participants significantly more willing to share results with doctors than German participants, who preferred sharing with the family).

Conclusion

The analysis of cultural and organizational differences could help in defining adequate guidelines for counseling, and provide inputs for regulators in different European contexts.

Targeted BRCA1/2 population screening among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals using a web-enabled medical model: An observational cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate uptake and follow-up using internet-assisted population genetic testing (GT) for BRCA1/2 Ashkenazi Jewish founder pathogenic variants (AJPVs).

METHODS

Across 4 cities in the United States, from December 2017 to March 2020, individuals aged ≥25 years with ≥1 Ashkenazi Jewish grandparent were offered enrollment. Participants consented and enrolled online with chatbot and video education, underwent BRCA1/2 AJPV GT, and chose to receive results from their primary care provider (PCP) or study staff. Surveys were conducted at baseline, at 12 weeks, and annually for 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 5193 participants enrolled and 4109 (79.1%) were tested (median age = 54, female = 77.1%). Upon enrollment, 35.1% of participants selected a PCP to disclose results, and 40.5% of PCPs agreed. Of those tested, 138 (3.4%) were AJPV heterozygotes of whom 21 (15.2%) had no significant family history of cancer, whereas 86 (62.3%) had a known familial pathogenic variant. At 12 weeks, 85.5% of participants with AJPVs planned increased cancer screening; only 3.7% with negative results and a significant family history reported further testing.

CONCLUSION

Although continued follow-up is needed, internet-enabled outreach can expand access to targeted GT using a medical model. Observed challenges for population genetic screening efforts include recruitment barriers, improving PCP engagement, and increasing uptake of additional testing when indicated.

Legal Challenges in Precision Medicine: What Duties Arising From Genetic and Genomic Testing Does a Physician Owe to Patients?

Precision medicine is increasingly incorporated into clinical practice via three primary data conduits: environmental, lifestyle, and genetic data. In this manuscript we take a closer look at the genetic tier of precision medicine. The volume and variety of data provides a more robust picture of health for individual patients and patient populations. However, this increased data may also have an adverse effect by muddling our understanding without the proper pedagogical tools. Patient genomic data can be challenging to work with. Physicians may encounter genetic results which are not fully understood. Genetic tests may also lead to the quandary of linking patients with diseases or disorders where there are no known treatments. Thus, physicians face a unique challenge of establishing the proper scope of their duty to patients when dealing with genomic data. Some of those scope of practice boundaries have been established as a result of litigation, while others remain an open question. In this paper, we map out some of the legal challenges facing the genomic component of precision medicine, both established and some questions requiring additional guidance. If physicians begin to perceive genomic data as falling short in overall benefit to their patients, it may detrimentally impact precision medicine as a whole. Helping to develop guidance for physicians working with patient genomic data can help avoid this fate of faltering confidence.

Direct to consumer genetic testing in Denmark-public knowledge, use, and attitudes

Direct to consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) is offered by commercial companies, but the use in the general population has only been sparsely investigated. A questionnaire was sent to 2013 representative Danish citizens asking about their awareness and use of DTC-GT. Individuals who had undergone a genetic test were interviewed to determine if the results had been understood correctly. A pilot study with 2469 questionnaires was performed before this study. In total, 45.4% of the individuals (n = 913/2013) had knowledge about DTC-GT and 2.5% (n = (18 + 5)/913) previously had a genetic test by a private company and 5.8% through the public health care system (n = (48 + 5)/913). Curiosity about own genetic information was the most frequent motivation (40.9%, n = 9/22) as well as knowledge of ancestry (36.4%, n = 8/22) and advice about lifestyle, exercise, or diet (36.4%, n = 8/22). Test of own disease risk was given as a reason in 27.3% (n = 6/22) and seeking possible explanation of specific symptoms in 13.6% (n = 3/22). 50% (n = 11/22) answered that they had become concerned after the test, and 17.4% (n = 4/23) had consulted their GP. Interviews in a subset of respondents from the pilot study revealed problems with understanding the results. One problem was how to interpret the genetic test results with respect to individual risk for a disease. For example, the difference between disease causing genetic variants in monogenetic diseases versus statistical risks by SNPs in multifactorial diseases was not understood by the respondents.

May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach

BACKGROUND

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) offers individuals access to information on their probable risks of suffering from a wide range of chronic diseases. General practitioners (GPs) will probably play a major role in supporting its use, but patients' perception of DTCGT remain unclear. This study aimed to describe those attitudes and expectations and how they might affect GPs' daily practices.

METHODS

In 2018-2019, a study related to the use of DTCGT for preventive care in general medicine was conducted among patients in Switzerland's French-speaking areas. Data were collected in the waiting room using a self-administrated questionnaire about patients' interest in DTCGT and what their attitudes might be if testing revealed an elevated risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, or Alzheimer's disease.

RESULTS

About 40% of the 929 participating (participation rate about 80%) patients had heard about DTCGT and, once the test had been explained, 43% reported that they would be interested in being tested. If that testing suggested an elevated risk of disease, the majority of patients reported that they would change their lifestyle (65%-81%, depending on the disease), request more examinations (63%-77%), and expect changes in their GP's follow-up (48%-59%). Personal characteristics such as sex, age, urbanity, marital status, and perceived health were factors predictive of patients' attitudes.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicated that the generalization of DTCGT might affect GPs' daily practices in terms of workload and knowledge about this approach. However, this result must be qualified by the fact that it is based on hypothetical situations.

Pitfalls and challenges in genetic test interpretation: An exploration of genetic professionals experience with interpretation of results

The interpretation of genetic testing results is subject to error. This observational study illustrates examples of pitfalls and challenges in interpretation of genetic testing results as reported by genetics professionals. We surveyed genetics professionals to describe interpretation challenges, the types of variants that were involved, and the reported clinical impact of misconception of a test result. Case studies were then collected from a select group to further explore potential causes of misunderstanding. A total of 83% of survey respondents were aware of at least one instance of genetic test misinterpretation. Both professionals with and without formal training in genetics were challenged by test reports, and variants of unknown significance were most frequently involved. Case submissions revealed that interpretation pitfalls extend beyond variant classification analyses. Inferred challenges in case submissions include lack of genetic counseling, unclear wording of reports, and suboptimal communication among providers. Respondents and case submitters noted that incorrect interpretation can trigger unnecessary follow-up tests and improperly alter clinical management. Further research is needed to validate and quantify large-scale data regarding challenges of genetic results interpretation.

Healthcare Professional Clinical Actions following Nutrigenomics Testing in Practice

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Clinical demand for nutrigenomics testing (NGT) is increasing, underscoring the importance of assessing healthcare professional (HCP) competence and clinical actions with NGT in practice. While previous studies have explored HCP perceptions of NGT, no study has examined real HCP experiences with NGT in practice. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical experience of providing NGT among early adopter HCPs who have used NGT in their practice. We hypothesized that HCP clinical actions after NGT would differ according to HCP personal experience undergoing genetic testing (GT) as well as years in practice. <b><i>Design:</i></b> An online survey questionnaire was administered to HCPs (<i>n</i> = 70) who have provided NGT in practice. χ² tests, tests for trend, and logistic regression were used to compare HCP characteristics with post-NGT outcomes. <b><i>Results:</i></b> HCPs with fewest years in practice (&#x3c;5 years) comprised the lowest proportion of respondents (16%). Most HCPs reported good understanding of NGT results and 92% made genetic-based dietary recommendations to patients following NGT. HCP personal use of GT increased significantly with increasing years in practice (&#x3c;5 years: 36%, 5–10 years: 53%, 11–20 years: 70%, and &#x3e;20 years: 85%, <i>p</i> trend = 0.003). Requesting patient bloodwork because of NGT results increased significantly with HCP years in practice when HCPs with &#x3c;5 years in practice were not considered (5–10 years: 19%, 11–20 years: 28%, and &#x3e;20 years: 60%, <i>p</i> trend = 0.010). A near significant difference was observed where a greater proportion of HCPs who had personally undergone GT reported requesting patient bloodwork (personal use: 46% vs. no personal use: 23%, <i>p</i>-χ² = 0.066). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Early HCP adopters of NGT utilize the test results to provide genetic-based dietary recommendations to patients. Clinical action after NGT currently appears to be driven by HCP years in practice, but HCP personal use of GT may also be a factor.

Genetic counselors' perspectives on population-based screening for BRCA-related hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome

Early identification of those with BRCA-related Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome has the potential for early cancer detection and/or prevention; as such, these conditions are considered Tier 1 genetic conditions by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Given the decreasing cost of genetic testing, population-based screening (PBS) for such conditions may be the next step toward cancer prevention. This study aimed to understand genetic counselors' perspectives toward offering PBS for the Tier 1 conditions BRCA-related HBOC and Lynch syndrome. An online survey was distributed to 3,609 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. A total of 367 individuals participated in the study. Fifty percent of respondents felt that PBS for inherited cancer should not be offered; 93.3% felt that the current healthcare system is unprepared for implementation of PBS. However, most respondents agreed that PBS should be implemented within the next 10 years. Attitudes toward offering PBS were associated with respondents' work setting, cancer specialization, and perceived preparedness (p's < 0.05). The most commonly reported barriers to the implementation of PBS were shortage of genetic professionals and lack of infrastructure. Data in this study provide evidence that infrastructural barriers and educational gaps of non-genetic professionals would need to be addressed before successful integration of PBS into the healthcare system.