1
|
Stewart NP, Quinlan C, Best S, Mynard JP. Noninvasive pediatric blood pressure assessment: exploring the clinicians' perspective. Blood Press Monit 2024; 29:127-135. [PMID: 38386314 DOI: 10.1097/mbp.0000000000000693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/23/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Obtaining accurate and reliable blood pressure (BP) readings in pediatric patients is challenging, given difficulties in adhering to measurement guidelines, limited device validation and variable patient cooperation. This study aimed to investigate clinicians' perspectives surrounding noninvasive pediatric BP assessment to identify opportunities for improvement in BP technology and clinical practice. METHOD Based on an adapted version of the extended Technology Acceptance Model 2, semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians involved in noninvasive pediatric BP assessment in a major Australian children's hospital. Transcripts were analyzed thematically and guided by Technology Acceptance Model 2. RESULTS Clinician responses ( n = 20) revealed that poor patient tolerance of BP measurement resulting from excessive cuff inflation is a major hindrance to reliable pediatric BP assessment. Clinicians described low trust in BP readings from automated devices, often relating to poor patient tolerance to cuff inflation, thereby diminishing the clinical utility of these readings in informing treatment decisions. Auscultatory measurement was regarded as more trustworthy and better tolerated, but less convenient to perform as compared with oscillometric measurement. CONCLUSION A dissonance exists between (1) low trust and clinical utility of the most common and easy-to-use BP measurement approach (automated devices), versus (2) higher trust and clinical utility, but efficiency and user-related impediments, for the auscultatory method. Based on our results, we have developed the Blood Pressure Acceptance Model, which can be used to explain and predict clinicians' acceptance of BP technology. Further work is needed to improve the tolerability and accuracy of automated BP devices in real-world pediatric settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie P Stewart
- Heart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne
| | - Catherine Quinlan
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne
- Department of Nephrology, Royal Children's Hospital
- Kidney Regeneration, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville VIC
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC
- Department of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
| | - Jonathan P Mynard
- Heart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lynch F, Best S, Gaff C, Downie L, Archibald AD, Gyngell C, Goranitis I, Peters R, Savulescu J, Lunke S, Stark Z, Vears DF. Australian public perspectives on genomic newborn screening: which conditions should be included? Hum Genomics 2024; 18:45. [PMID: 38720401 PMCID: PMC11077791 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-024-00611-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2024] [Accepted: 04/17/2024] [Indexed: 05/12/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementing genomic sequencing into newborn screening programs allows for significant expansion in the number and scope of conditions detected. We sought to explore public preferences and perspectives on which conditions to include in genomic newborn screening (gNBS). METHODS We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age, using social media, and invited them to participate in online focus groups. RESULTS Seventy-five members of the public aged 23-72 participated in one of fifteen focus groups. Participants agreed that if prioritisation of conditions was necessary, childhood-onset conditions were more important to include than later-onset conditions. Despite the purpose of the focus groups being to elicit public preferences, participants wanted to defer to others, such as health professionals or those with a lived experience of each condition, to make decisions about which conditions to include. Many participants saw benefit in including conditions with no available treatment. Participants agreed that gNBS should be fully publicly funded. CONCLUSION How many and which conditions are included in a gNBS program will be a complex decision requiring detailed assessment of benefits and costs alongside public and professional engagement. Our study provides support for implementing gNBS for treatable childhood-onset conditions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Lynch
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Dept of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Melbourne Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Lilian Downie
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Alison D Archibald
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Christopher Gyngell
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Economics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Riccarda Peters
- Economics of Genomics and Precision Medicine Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Julian Savulescu
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 117597, Singapore
- Uehiro Chair of Practical Ethics, The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK
| | - Sebastian Lunke
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Department of Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Danya F Vears
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
- Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia.
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia.
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fehlberg Z, Stark Z, Best S. Reanalysis of genomic data, how do we do it now and what if we automate it? A qualitative study. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32:521-528. [PMID: 38212661 PMCID: PMC11061153 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01532-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2023] [Revised: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/21/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Automating reanalysis of genomic data for undiagnosed rare disease patients presents a paradigm shift in how clinical genomics is delivered. We aimed to map the current manual and proposed automated approach to reanalysis and identify possible implementation strategies to address clinical and laboratory staff's perceived challenges to automation. Fourteen semi-structured interviews guided by a simplified process map were conducted with clinical and laboratory staff across Australia. Individual process maps were integrated into an overview of the current process, noting variation in service delivery. Participants then mapped an automated approach and were invited to discuss perceived challenges and possible supports to automation. Responses were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, linking to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework to identify theory-informed implementation strategies. Process mapping demonstrates how automation streamlines processes with eleven steps reduced to seven. Although participants welcomed automation, challenges were raised at six of the steps. Strategies to overcome challenges include embedding project champions, developing education materials, facilitating clinical innovation and quality monitoring tools, and altering reimbursement structures. Future work can build on these findings to develop context specific implementation strategies to guide translation of an automated approach to reanalysis to improve clinical care and patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Department of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dadich A, Best S. The mobilisation of professional identity: A scoping and lexical review. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0298423. [PMID: 38626144 PMCID: PMC11020764 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2023] [Accepted: 01/24/2024] [Indexed: 04/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Interprofessional care obliges different healthcare professions to share decision-making and sometimes, practices. Given established hierarchies, it can be difficult to promote interprofessional care, partly because of the need to reshape professional identities. Despite interest in effective interprofessional care, there is limited research on how professional identity can be mobilised to promote it. A scoping review as well as lexical review of academic publications was conducted to address this void. After searching seven academic databases and screening the identified publications, 22 publications met the inclusion criteria. They collectively reported on 22 interventions, most of which were used in healthcare. The scoping review suggested there is some evidence that professional identities can be mobilised. Yet, of the 22 interventions, only ten explicitly targeted professional identity. The most common intervention was a training or development program, followed by workplace redesign. The need for internal motivation to mobilise professional identity was reported as was the impact of external drivers, like extending the scope of practice. Extending these findings, the lexical review demonstrated that, among the 22 publications, the relationship between professional identity and mobilisation did not feature prominently within the discourse. Furthermore, it seems that geography matters-that is, while all the publications spoke of professional identity, they differed by region on how they did this. Given these findings, concentrated scholarship is needed on the relationship between professional identity and interprofessional care, lest interprofessional care programs have limited, sustained effect. Implications for scholars and practitioners are explicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ann Dadich
- School of Business, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, NSW, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lunke S, Bouffler SE, Downie L, Caruana J, Amor DJ, Archibald A, Bombard Y, Christodoulou J, Clausen M, De Fazio P, Greaves RF, Hollizeck S, Kanga-Parabia A, Lang N, Lynch F, Peters R, Sadedin S, Tutty E, Eggers S, Lee C, Wall M, Yeung A, Gaff C, Gyngell C, Vears DF, Best S, Goranitis I, Stark Z. Prospective cohort study of genomic newborn screening: BabyScreen+ pilot study protocol. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e081426. [PMID: 38569677 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/05/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Lunke
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sophie E Bouffler
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lilian Downie
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jade Caruana
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - David J Amor
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alison Archibald
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Yvonne Bombard
- Genomics Health Services Research Program, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - John Christodoulou
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Marc Clausen
- Genomics Health Services Research Program, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paul De Fazio
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ronda F Greaves
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sebastian Hollizeck
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Anaita Kanga-Parabia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nitzan Lang
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Fiona Lynch
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Simon Sadedin
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Erin Tutty
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stefanie Eggers
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Crystle Lee
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Meaghan Wall
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alison Yeung
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Christopher Gyngell
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Danya F Vears
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Meng Y, Best S, Amor DJ, Braden R, Morgan AT, Goranitis I. The value of genomic testing in severe childhood speech disorders. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32:440-447. [PMID: 38308083 PMCID: PMC10999408 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01534-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Revised: 10/25/2023] [Accepted: 01/09/2024] [Indexed: 02/04/2024] Open
Abstract
With increasing gene discoveries for severe speech disorders, genomic testing can alter the diagnostic and clinical paradigms, enabling better life outcomes for children and their families. However, evidence on the value of the outcomes generated is lacking, impeding optimal translation into health care. This study aims to estimate the value and uptake of genomic testing for severe childhood speech disorders. A discrete choice experiment was undertaken to elicit preferences for genomic testing from the perspective of the Australian public (n = 951) and parents of children experiencing severe speech disorder (n = 56). Choice attributes associated with genomic testing were identified through focus groups. A Bayesian D-efficient design was used to develop choice scenarios and choice data were analyzed using a panel error component mixed logit model and a latent class model. Statistically significant preferences were identified across all seven attributes. The mean monetary value of the benefits of genomic testing relative to standard diagnostic care in Australia was estimated at AU$7489 (US$5021) and AU$4452 (US$2985) from the perspectives of the Australian public and families with lived experience of severe speech disorders, with a corresponding test uptake of 94.2% and 99.6%. To ensure fair prioritization of genomics, decision-makers need to consider the wide range of risks and benefits associated with genomic information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Meng
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Center, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - David J Amor
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Ruth Braden
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Angela T Morgan
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
- Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Best S, Thursky K, Buzza M, Klaic M, Peters S, Guccione L, Trainer A, Francis J. Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science for cancer research. BMC Health Serv Res 2024; 24:338. [PMID: 38486219 PMCID: PMC10938739 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10801-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/18/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The challenge of implementing evidence into routine clinical practice is well recognised and implementation science offers theories, models and frameworks to promote investigation into delivery of evidence-based care. Embedding implementation researchers into health systems is a novel approach to ensuring research is situated in day-to-day practice dilemmas. To optimise the value of embedded implementation researchers and resources, the aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders' views on opportunities for implementation science research in a cancer setting that holds potential to impact on care. The research objectives were to: 1) Establish stakeholder and theory informed organisation-level implementation science priorities and 2) Identify and prioritise a test case pilot implementation research project. METHODS We undertook a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants held either a formal leadership role, were research active or a consumer advocate and affiliated with either a specialist cancer hospital or a cancer alliance of ten hospitals. Interview data were summarised and shared with participants prior to undertaking both thematic analysis, to identify priority areas for implementation research, and content analysis, to identify potential pilot implementation research projects. The selected pilot Implementation research project was prioritised using a synthesis of an organisational and implementation prioritisation framework - the organisational priority setting framework and APEASE framework. RESULTS Thirty-one people participated between August 2022 and February 2023. Four themes were identified: 1) Integration of services to address organisational priorities e.g., tackling fragmented services; 2) Application of digital health interventions e.g., identifying the potential benefits of digital health interventions; 3) Identification of potential for implementation research, including deimplementation i.e., discontinuing ineffective or low value care and; 4) Focusing on direct patient engagement e.g., wider consumer awareness of the challenges in delivering cancer care. Six potential pilot implementation research projects were identified and the EMBED project, to support clinicians to refer appropriate patients with cancer for genetic testing, was selected using the synthesised prioritisation framework. CONCLUSIONS Using a theory informed and structured approach the alignment between strategic organisational priorities and implementation research priorities can be identified. As a result, the implementation research focus can be placed on activities with the highest potential impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- University of Melbourne; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Australian Genomics, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Karin Thursky
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; Royal Melbourne Hospital; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Lisa Guccione
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Alison Trainer
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jillian Francis
- University of Melbourne; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fehlberg Z, Goranitis I, Mallett AJ, Stark Z, Best S. Determining priority indicators of utility for genomic testing in rare disease: A Delphi study. Genet Med 2024; 26:101116. [PMID: 38459833 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2024.101116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2023] [Revised: 03/01/2024] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Determining the value of genomic tests in rare disease necessitates a broader conceptualization of genomic utility beyond diagnostic yield. Despite widespread discussion, consensus toward which aspects of value to consider is lacking. This study aimed to use expert opinion to identify and refine priority indicators of utility in rare disease genomic testing. METHODS We used 2 survey rounds following Delphi methodology to obtain consensus on indicators of utility among experts involved in policy, clinical, research, and consumer advocacy leadership in Australia. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data to identify, define, and determine priority indicators. RESULTS Twenty-five experts completed round 1 and 18 completed both rounds. Twenty indicators reached consensus as a priority in value assessment, including those relating to prognostic information, timeliness of results, practical and health care outcomes, clinical accreditation, and diagnostic yield. Whereas indicators pertaining to discovery research, disutility, and factors secondary to primary reason for testing were considered less of a priority and were removed. CONCLUSION This study obtained expert consensus on different utility indicators that are considered a priority in determining the value of genomic testing in rare disease in Australia. Indicators may inform a standardized approach to evidence generation and assessment to guide future research, decision making, and implementation efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrew J Mallett
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas, QLD, Australia; Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia; Department of Renal Medicine, Townsville University Hospital, Douglas, QLD, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lynch F, Meng Y, Best S, Goranitis I, Savulescu J, Gyngell C, Vears DF. Australian public perspectives on genomic data governance: responsibility, regulation, and logistical considerations. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32:295-301. [PMID: 37165103 PMCID: PMC10923910 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01381-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2022] [Revised: 03/13/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Genomic sequencing generates huge volumes of data, which may be collected or donated to form large genomic databases. Such information can be stored for future use, either for the data donor themselves or by researchers to help improve our understanding of the genetic basis of disease. Creating datasets of this magnitude and diversity is only possible if patients, their families, and members of the public worldwide share their data. However, there is no consensus on the best technical approach to data sharing that also minimises risks to individuals and exploration of stakeholders' views on aspects of genomic data governance models-the ways genomic data is stored, managed, shared and used-has been minimal. To address this need, we conducted focus groups with 39 members of the Australian public exploring their views and preferences for different aspects of genomic data governance models. We found that consent and control were essential to participants, as they wanted the option to choose who had access to their data and for what purposes. Critically, participants wanted a trustworthy body to enforce regulation of data storage, sharing and usage. While participants recognised the importance of data accessibility, they also expressed a strong desire for data security. Finally, financial responsibility for data storage raised concerns for inequity as well as organisations and individuals using data in ethically contentious ways to generate profit. Our findings highlight some of the trade-offs that need to be considered in the development of genomic data governance systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Lynch
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Yan Meng
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Julian Savulescu
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Christopher Gyngell
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Danya F Vears
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
- Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lai-Kwon J, Rutherford C, Jefford M, Gore C, Best S. Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care. JCO Oncol Pract 2024; 20:335-349. [PMID: 38206290 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2023] [Revised: 11/02/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool. RESULTS Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies. CONCLUSION The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Lai-Kwon
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Claudia Rutherford
- Cancer Care Research Unit (CCRU), Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Michael Jefford
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Claire Gore
- Department of Psychology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Psychology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Goranitis I, Meng Y, Martyn M, Best S, Bouffler S, Bombard Y, Gaff C, Stark Z. Eliciting parental preferences and values for the return of additional findings from genomic sequencing. NPJ Genom Med 2024; 9:10. [PMID: 38355752 PMCID: PMC10867021 DOI: 10.1038/s41525-024-00399-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 02/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Health economic evidence is needed to inform the design of high-value and cost-effective processes for returning genomic results from analyses for additional findings (AF). This study reports the results of a discrete-choice experiment designed to elicit preferences for the process of returning AF results from the perspective of parents of children with rare conditions and to estimate the value placed on AF analysis. Overall, 94 parents recruited within the Australian Genomics and Melbourne Genomics programmes participated in the survey, providing preferences in a total of 1128 choice scenarios. Statistically significant preferences were identified for the opportunity to change the choices made about AF; receiving positive AF in person from a genetic counsellor; timely access to a medical specialist and high-quality online resources; receiving automatic updates through a secure online portal if new information becomes available; and lower costs. For AF uptake rates ranging between 50-95%, the mean per person value from AF analysis was estimated at AU$450-$1700 (US$300-$1140). The findings enable the design of a value-maximising process of analysis for AF in rare-disease genomic sequencing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilias Goranitis
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Yan Meng
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Melissa Martyn
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Sophie Bouffler
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Yvonne Bombard
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Genomics Health Services Research Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Clara Gaff
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Pearce A, Mitchell LA, Best S, Young MA, Terrill B. Publics' knowledge of, attitude to and motivation towards health-related genomics: a scoping review. Eur J Hum Genet 2024:10.1038/s41431-024-01547-5. [PMID: 38316954 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01547-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2023] [Revised: 11/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/18/2024] [Indexed: 02/07/2024] Open
Abstract
The use of genomic data in research and genomic information in clinical care is increasing as technologies advance and sequencing costs decrease. Using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory as a framework we reviewed recent literature examining publics' current knowledge of, attitude to, and motivation towards health-related genomics in clinical and research settings. The population of interest was described as 'publics' to denote the heterogeneity of 'the public'. Eligible studies were published in English between 2016-2022. We retrieved 1657 records, with 278 full-text reviewed against the eligibility criteria and concept definitions. In total, 99 articles were included in the review and descriptive numerical summaries were collated. Knowledge literature was categorized using deductive thematic analysis. For attitude and motivation, literature was coded using an analytic framework developed by the authors. There was wide variability in concept definition and measurement across studies. Overall, there was general positivity about genomics, with high awareness but little familiarity or factual knowledge. Publics had high expectations of genomics and perceived that it could provide them with information for their future. Only a few key attitudes were found to be important as motivators or barriers for participation in genomics; these were related to personal and clinical utility of the information. Context was often missing from studies, decreasing the utility of findings for implementation or public engagement. Future research would benefit by using theory-driven approaches to assess relevant publics' knowledge and attitudes of specific contexts or applications to support genomic implementation and informed decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angela Pearce
- Clinical Translation & Engagement, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Lucas A Mitchell
- Clinical Translation & Engagement, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Mary-Anne Young
- Clinical Translation & Engagement, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Bronwyn Terrill
- Clinical Translation & Engagement, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Robertson EG, Kelada L, Best S, Goranitis I, Pierce K, Bye A, Palmer EE. Quality of life in caregivers of a child with a developmental and epileptic encephalopathy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2024; 66:206-215. [PMID: 37421242 PMCID: PMC10952662 DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15695] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Revised: 05/28/2023] [Accepted: 06/02/2023] [Indexed: 07/10/2023]
Abstract
AIM To explore the relationship between social care-related quality of life (SCrQoL) for caregivers of a child with a developmental and epileptic encephalopathy (DEE; such as SCN2A and Dravet syndrome) and health literacy, illness perceptions, and caregiver activation. METHOD As part of a larger pre-post pilot study of an information linker service, caregivers completed a baseline questionnaire which included demographics and measures to assess SCrQoL, health literacy, illness perceptions, and caregiver activation. We used Spearman's Rho to determine relationships between variables. RESULTS Seventy-two caregivers completed the questionnaire. Total SCrQoL varied widely, ranging from an 'ideal state' to 'high needs state'. Caregivers most frequently reported high needs regarding doing activities they enjoy and looking after themselves. Total SCrQoL was correlated with cognitive (r[70] = -0.414, p < 0.000) and emotional representations of illness (r[70] = -0.503, p < 0.000), but not coherence (r = -0.075, p = 0.529). Total SCrQoL was not correlated with health literacy (r[70] = 0.125, p = 0.295) or caregiver activation (r[70] = 0.181, p = 0.127). INTERPRETATION Future research should explore whether interventions that help caregivers cognitively reframe the negative experiences of having a child with a DEE, and support them to partake in activities they enjoy, boost their SCrQoL. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS Caregiver social care-related quality of life (SCrQoL) varied widely, from 'ideal state' to 'high needs state'. Most common high needs were doing enjoyable activities and self-care. Caregivers with higher SCrQoL may perceive their child's illness as less threatening. SCrQoL does not appear to be related to caregiver activation in this sample.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eden G Robertson
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, Australia
| | - Lauren Kelada
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Dept of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Kristine Pierce
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia
- Epilepsy Foundation, Surrey Hills, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Annie Bye
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia
- Department of Neurology, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network - Randwick, Randwick, Australia
| | - Elizabeth E Palmer
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network - Randwick, Randwick, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lynch F, Best S, Gaff C, Downie L, Archibald AD, Gyngell C, Goranitis I, Peters R, Savulescu J, Lunke S, Stark Z, Vears DF. Australian Public Perspectives on Genomic Newborn Screening: Risks, Benefits, and Preferences for Implementation. Int J Neonatal Screen 2024; 10:6. [PMID: 38248635 PMCID: PMC10801595 DOI: 10.3390/ijns10010006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2023] [Revised: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 01/02/2024] [Indexed: 01/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Recent dramatic reductions in the timeframe in which genomic sequencing can deliver results means its application in time-sensitive screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is becoming a reality. As genomic NBS (gNBS) programs are developed around the world, there is an increasing need to address the ethical and social issues that such initiatives raise. This study therefore aimed to explore the Australian public's perspectives and values regarding key gNBS characteristics and preferences for service delivery. We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age via social media; 75 people aged 23-72 participated in 1 of 15 focus groups. Participants were generally supportive of introducing genomic sequencing into newborn screening, with several stating that the adoption of such revolutionary and beneficial technology was a moral obligation. Participants consistently highlighted receiving an early diagnosis as the leading benefit, which was frequently linked to the potential for early treatment and intervention, or access to other forms of assistance, such as peer support. Informing parents about the test during pregnancy was considered important. This study provides insights into the Australian public's views and preferences to inform the delivery of a gNBS program in the Australian context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Lynch
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (F.L.); (C.G.); (J.S.)
- Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia;
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; (I.G.); (Z.S.)
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (C.G.); (L.D.); (A.D.A.)
- Melbourne Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
| | - Lilian Downie
- Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (C.G.); (L.D.); (A.D.A.)
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia;
| | - Alison D. Archibald
- Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (C.G.); (L.D.); (A.D.A.)
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia;
| | - Christopher Gyngell
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (F.L.); (C.G.); (J.S.)
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; (I.G.); (Z.S.)
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia;
| | - Riccarda Peters
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia;
| | - Julian Savulescu
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (F.L.); (C.G.); (J.S.)
- Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597, Singapore
| | - Sebastian Lunke
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia;
- Department of Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia; (I.G.); (Z.S.)
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia;
| | - Danya F. Vears
- Biomedical Ethics Research Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (F.L.); (C.G.); (J.S.)
- Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3052, Australia
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Best S, Roberts MC, Taylor N. We Need to Stand Together on the Shoulders of Giants: Consolidating Effective Approaches for Translating Genomics into Practice with Implementation Science. Public Health Genomics 2023; 27:12-15. [PMID: 38128503 DOI: 10.1159/000535667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/04/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Megan C Roberts
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Natalie Taylor
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Trainer AH, Goode E, Hoskins CN, Wheeler JCW, Best S. Calibrating variant curation by clinical context based on factors that influence patients' tolerance of uncertainty. Genet Med 2023; 25:100982. [PMID: 37724515 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2023.100982] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Revised: 09/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/21/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Shared decision making manages genomic uncertainty by integrating molecular and clinical uncertainties with patient values to craft a person-centered management plan. Laboratories seek genomic report consistency, agnostic to clinical context. Molecular reports often mask laboratory-managed uncertainties from clinical decision making. Better integration of these uncertainty management strategies requires a nuanced understanding of patients' perceptions and reactions to test uncertainties. We explored patients' tolerance to variant uncertainty in 3 parameters: (1) relative causal significance, (2) risk accuracy, and (3) classification validity. METHOD Deliberative forums were undertaken with 18 patients with predictive testing experience. Uncertainty deliberations were elicited for each parameter. A thematic framework was first developed, and then mapped to whether they justified tolerance to more or less parameter-specific uncertainty. RESULTS Six identified themes mapped to clinical and personal domains. These domains generated opposing forces when calibrating uncertainty. Personal themes justified tolerance of higher uncertainty and clinical themes lower uncertainty. Decision making in uncertainty focused on reducing management regret. Open communication increased tolerance of classification validity and risk accuracy uncertainty. Using these data, we have developed a nascent clinical algorithm integrating molecular uncertainty with clinical context through a targeted communication framework. CONCLUSION Maximizing test utility necessitates context-specific recalibration of uncertainty management and communication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison H Trainer
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Erin Goode
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Cass N Hoskins
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jack C W Wheeler
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian Genomics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Best S, Long JC, Fehlberg Z, Taylor N, Ellis LA, Boggs K, Braithwaite J. Using a theory informed approach to design, execute, and evaluate implementation strategies to support offering reproductive genetic carrier screening in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23:1276. [PMID: 37981708 PMCID: PMC10658900 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-10053-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2023] [Accepted: 09/23/2023] [Indexed: 11/21/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Health care professionals play a central role in offering reproductive genetic carrier screening but face challenges when integrating the offer into practice. The aim of this study was to design, execute, and evaluate theory-informed implementation strategies to support health care professionals in offering carrier screening. METHODS An exploratory multi-method approach was systematically employed based on the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). Implementation strategies were designed by aligning TDF barriers reported by health care professionals involved in a large carrier screening study, to behaviour change techniques combined with study genetic counsellors' experiential knowledge. The strategies were trialled with a subset of health care professionals and evaluated against controls, using findings from questionnaires and interviews with healthcare professionals. The primary outcome measure was the number of couples who initiated enrolment. RESULTS Health care professionals (n = 151) reported barriers in the TDF Domains of skills, e.g., lack of practice in offering screening, and challenges of environmental context and resources, e.g., lack of time, which informed the design of a skills video and a waiting room poster using the TDF-behaviour change technique linking tool. Following implementation, (Skills video n = 29 vs control n = 31 and Poster n = 46 vs control n = 34) TDF barrier scores decreased across all groups and little change was observed in the primary outcome measure. The skills video, though welcomed by health care professionals, was reportedly too long at seven minutes. The waiting room poster was seen as easily implementable. CONCLUSIONS As carrier screening moves towards mainstream healthcare, health care professionals report barriers to offering screening. To meet their needs, developing and testing experiential and theory-informed strategies that acknowledge contextual factors are essential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Louise A Ellis
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Kirsten Boggs
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network-Westmead, Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network-Randwick, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Robertson EG, Roberts NJ, Le Marne F, Beavis E, Macintosh R, Kelada L, Best S, Goranitis I, Pierce K, Gill D, Sachdev R, Bye A, Palmer EE. "Somewhere to turn to with my questions": A pre-post pilot of an information linker service for caregivers who have a child with a Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2023; 47:94-104. [PMID: 37832466 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2023.09.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2023] [Revised: 09/03/2023] [Accepted: 09/29/2023] [Indexed: 10/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Caregivers of a child with a Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathy (DEE) often report challenges accessing relevant and understandable information regarding their child's condition. We developed GenE Compass, an information linker service where caregivers are invited to submit questions and receive high-quality, personalised reports. We conducted a pilot evaluation to determine the feasibility and acceptability of GenE Compass. METHODS We invited eligible caregivers to complete a baseline questionnaire (Q1) prior to receiving three months access to submit an unlimited number of questions to GenE Compass. We then invited caregivers to complete a follow-up questionnaire (Q2) and optional interview. Caregivers also had the opportunity to share report-specific feedback at the time of receiving each report. RESULTS Seventy-two caregivers completed Q1, of which 41 submitted at least one question (range = 1-7). We received a total of 76 questions. The median turnaround time was 12 working days for our information linker (range = 1-28). Thirty-seven caregivers completed Q2, of whom 32 submitted at least one question (87 %). Overall, caregivers were highly satisfied with GenE Compass and their reports, and indicated that they would use it in the future if they had another question. Caregivers' qualitative data from Q1 and interviews highlighted the ongoing need for an information linker service like GenE Compass due to a lack of understandable information and limited resources, and the benefit in reducing burden of constant information searching. CONCLUSION Our study shows that GenE Compass is feasible with the appropriate allocation of resources and highly acceptable to caregivers who have a child with a DEE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eden G Robertson
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia.
| | - Natalie J Roberts
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia
| | - Fleur Le Marne
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia; Department of Neurology, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Randwick, NSW, Australia
| | - Erin Beavis
- Department of Neurology, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Randwick, NSW, Australia
| | - Rebecca Macintosh
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia; Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Randwick, NSW, Australia
| | - Lauren Kelada
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia; Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Dept of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Kristine Pierce
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia; Epilepsy Foundation, Surrey Hills, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Deepak Gill
- TY Nelson Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia; Kids Neuroscience Centre, Sydney, Australia
| | - Rani Sachdev
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia; Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Randwick, NSW, Australia
| | - Ann Bye
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia; Department of Neurology, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Randwick, NSW, Australia
| | - Elizabeth E Palmer
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW Sydney, Randwick, Australia; Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Randwick, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Sarkies MN, Testa L, Best S, Moullin JC, Sullivan D, Bishop W, Kostner K, Clifton P, Hare D, Brett T, Hutchinson K, Black A, Braithwaite J, Nicholls SJ, Kangaharan N, Pang J, Abhayaratna W, Horton A, Watts GF. Barriers to and Facilitators of Implementing Guidelines for Detecting Familial Hypercholesterolaemia in Australia. Heart Lung Circ 2023; 32:1347-1353. [PMID: 37865587 DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2023.09.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2022] [Revised: 07/27/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a genetic condition that is a preventable cause of premature cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. High-level evidence and clinical practice guidelines support preventative care for people with FH. However, it is estimated that less than 10% of people at risk of FH have been detected using any approach across Australian health settings. The aim of this study was to identify the implementation barriers to and facilitators of the detection of FH in Australia. METHODS Four, 2-hour virtual focus groups were facilitated by implementation scientists and a clinicians as part of the 2021 Australasian FH Summit. Template analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS There were 28 workshop attendees across four groups (n=6-8 each), yielding 13 barriers and 10 facilitators across three themes: (1) patient related, (2) provider related, and (3) system related. A "lack of care pathways" and "upskilling clinicians in identifying and diagnosing FH" were the most interconnected barriers and facilitators for the detection of FH. CONCLUSIONS The relationships between barriers and facilitators across the patient, provider, and system themes indicates that a comprehensive implementation strategy is needed to address these different levels. Future research is underway to develop a model for implementing the Australian FH guidelines into practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitchell N Sarkies
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Luke Testa
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
| | - Joanna C Moullin
- School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - David Sullivan
- Department of Chemical Pathology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Warrick Bishop
- Department of Cardiology, Calvary Cardiac Centre, Calvary Health Care, Hobart, Tas, Australia
| | - Karam Kostner
- Department of Cardiology, Mater Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
| | - Peter Clifton
- Department of Endocrinology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - David Hare
- Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
| | - Tom Brett
- General Practice and Primary Health Care Research, School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, WA, Australia
| | - Karen Hutchinson
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Andrew Black
- Department of Cardiology, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tas, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stephen J Nicholls
- Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
| | | | - Jing Pang
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Walter Abhayaratna
- College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
| | - Ari Horton
- Monash Cardiovascular Research Centre, Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Monash Heart and Monash Children's Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Monash Genetics, Monash Health, Melbourne, Vic, Australia; Department of Genomic Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Vic, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, Monash University Clayton, Vic, Australia
| | - Gerald F Watts
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Department of Cardiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Allen CG, Olstad DL, Kahkoska AR, Guan Y, Ramos PS, Steinberg J, Staras SAS, Lumpkins CY, Milko LV, Turbitt E, Rahm AK, Saylor KW, Best S, Hatch A, Santangelo I, Roberts MC. Extending an Antiracism Lens to the Implementation of Precision Public Health Interventions. Am J Public Health 2023; 113:1210-1218. [PMID: 37651661 PMCID: PMC10568499 DOI: 10.2105/ajph.2023.307386] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/06/2023] [Indexed: 09/02/2023]
Abstract
Precision public health holds promise to improve disease prevention and health promotion strategies, allowing the right intervention to be delivered to the right population at the right time. Growing concerns underscore the potential for precision-based approaches to exacerbate health disparities by relying on biased data inputs and recapitulating existing access inequities. To achieve its full potential, precision public health must focus on addressing social and structural drivers of health and prominently incorporate equity-related concerns, particularly with respect to race and ethnicity. In this article, we discuss how an antiracism lens could be applied to reduce health disparities and health inequities through equity-informed research, implementation, and evaluation of precision public health interventions. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(11):1210-1218. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307386).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caitlin G Allen
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Dana Lee Olstad
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Anna R Kahkoska
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Yue Guan
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Paula S Ramos
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Julia Steinberg
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie A S Staras
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Crystal Y Lumpkins
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Laura V Milko
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Erin Turbitt
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Alanna K Rahm
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Katherine W Saylor
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ashley Hatch
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Isabella Santangelo
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Megan C Roberts
- Caitlin G. Allen and Ashley Hatch are with the Department of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, and Paula S. Ramos is with the Departments of Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. Dana Lee Olstad is with the Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Anna R. Kahkoska is with the Department of Nutrition, Laura V. Milko is with the Department of Genetics, and Megan C. Roberts is with the Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yue Guan and Isabella Santangelo are with the Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Julia Steinberg is with The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. Stephanie A. S. Staras is with the Department of Health Outcome and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, and Institute for Child Health Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. Crystal Y. Lumpkins is with the Department of Communication, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Erin Turbitt is with the Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. Alanna K. Rahm is with the Department of Genomic Health, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA. Katherine W. Saylor is with the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Stephanie Best is with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Best S, Long JC, Fehlberg Z, Archibald AD, Braithwaite J. Supporting healthcare professionals to offer reproductive genetic carrier screening: a behaviour change theory approach. Aust J Prim Health 2023; 29:480-489. [PMID: 37156638 DOI: 10.1071/py23022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2023] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND As reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) becomes more widely accessible, ensuring uptake by primary healthcare professionals (HCPs) is essential to equitable service provision. This study aimed to identify and prioritise implementation strategies to reduce barriers and support HCPs to routinely offer RGCS in Australia. METHODS HCPs (n =990) involved in a large national research study, offering couples-based RGCS, were surveyed at three time points: prior to offering RGCS through the study (Survey 1: Barriers); 8+weeks after offering to their patients (Survey 2: Possible supports); and towards the end of the study (Survey 3: Prioritised supports). HCPs were from primary care (e.g. general practice, midwifery) and tertiary care (e.g. fertility, genetics) settings. Results were analysed via a novel approach of using behaviour change theory (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation - COM.B) to align theory to practice. RESULTS Survey 1 (n =599) identified four barrier themes: time constraints, lack of HCP knowledge and skill, patient receptivity, and HCP's perceived value of RGCS. Survey 2 (n =358) identified 31 supports that could facilitate HCPs offering RGCS. Survey 3 (n =390) was analysed separately by speciality and clinic location. Prioritised supports for primary care HCPs were 'regular continuing professional development activities' and 'a comprehensive website to direct patients for information'. There was general accordance with the perceived importance of the supports, although some difference in relation to funding between professional groups and clinic locations. CONCLUSION This study identified a range of supports acceptable to HCPs across specialties and geographic locations that policymakers may use to direct efforts to ensure the roll out of RGCS is equitable across Australia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2113, Australia; and Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Vic. 3052, Australia; and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia; and Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia; and Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2113, Australia
| | - Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2113, Australia; and Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Vic. 3052, Australia
| | - Alison D Archibald
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia; and Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Vic. 3052, Australia; and Genomics in Society, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Vic. 3052, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2113, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lauretta ML, Jarmolowicz A, Amor DJ, Best S, Morgan AT. An Investigation of Barriers and Enablers for Genetics in Speech-Language Pathology Explored Through a Case Study of Childhood Apraxia of Speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2023:1-15. [PMID: 37713535 DOI: 10.1044/2023_jslhr-22-00714] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/17/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Advancements in genetic testing and analysis have allowed improved identification of the genetic basis of childhood apraxia of speech, a rare speech presentation. This study aimed to understand speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') consideration of incorporation of genetics in clinical practice using a theory-informed qualitative approach. METHOD Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 pediatric SLPs using a behavior change theory (Theoretical Domains Framework [TDF]) within a case study describing a child with complex co-occurring features, including childhood apraxia of speech. Interviews focused on three stages of the patient journey (prereferral, referral, and postreferral). Interviews were analyzed to identify barriers and enablers to considering incorporation of genetics in current clinical practice. Barriers and enablers were grouped and mapped onto a contextually relevant TDF-coded analysis framework. RESULTS Barriers were identified across several TDF domains, through all stages of the patient journey. Lack of confidence, relevance, and level of experience were most common prereferral, and connection to and awareness of genetics services and contextual factors were barriers in the referral stage. Perception of professional role, knowledge, and beliefs about effects on families were barriers postreferral. Associated enablers were also identified, including seeing value in genetic diagnosis, support from other health care professionals, supervision, and relationships with genetics services. CONCLUSIONS Results of this qualitative study highlight barriers and enablers to incorporating genetics into speech-language pathology clinical practice. These findings will assist in the development of theory-informed implementation strategies to support SLPs into the future. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24112800.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anna Jarmolowicz
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - David J Amor
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Angela T Morgan
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Walsby A, O'Connor L, Best S, Williams SJ. Evaluation of a family liaison officer role introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods study. J Eval Clin Pract 2023; 29:998-1007. [PMID: 37021355 DOI: 10.1111/jep.13843] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2022] [Revised: 03/14/2023] [Accepted: 03/15/2023] [Indexed: 04/07/2023]
Abstract
RATIONALE The restrictions to hospital visiting for carers and relatives during the pandemic were unprecedented. To ensure patients could stay in touch with their relatives and carers new liaison roles were introduced. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The aim of this study is to report on the evaluation of a Family Liaison Officer (FLO) role to understand the rationale for introducing the role along with the challenges and benefits of its implementation. METHODS A concurrent mixed methods design was used, triangulating both semi structured interviews and online surveys. Data were collected during 2021 from postholders, patients/relatives and key stakeholders. RESULTS The family liaison officer role occupies a key brokering role between clinical teams and patients/relatives. All participants agreed the importance of the role particularly in relation to communication. Postholders noted issues around clarity of scope of practice. Patients reported the social benefits of the FLOs particularly in relation to technology. There was also key learning in terms of induction, training and line management of this nonprofessional role. CONCLUSION There is limited research that evaluates emerging nonprofessional roles that connect clinical teams and patients/relatives. This evaluation study although limited to one organisation provides important insights to the strategic and operational learning to introducing a family liaison officer role during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Walsby
- Hywel Dda University Health Board, Carmarthen, Wales, UK
- School of Health & Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK
| | | | - Stephanie Best
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia and Health & Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK
| | - Sharon J Williams
- School of Health & Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Mallett A, Stark Z, Fehlberg Z, Best S, Goranitis I. Determining the utility of diagnostic genomics: a conceptual framework. Hum Genomics 2023; 17:75. [PMID: 37587497 PMCID: PMC10433656 DOI: 10.1186/s40246-023-00524-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diagnostic efficacy is now well established for diagnostic genomic testing in rare disease. Assessment of overall utility is emerging as a key next step, however ambiguity in the conceptualisation and measurement of utility has impeded its assessment in a comprehensive manner. We propose a conceptual framework to approach determining the broader utility of diagnostic genomics encompassing patients, families, clinicians, health services and health systems to assist future evidence generation and funding decisions. BODY: Building upon previous work, our framework posits that utility of diagnostic genomics consists of three dimensions: the domain or type and extent of utility (what), the relationship and perspective of utility (who), and the time horizon of utility (when). Across the description, assessment, and summation of these three proposed dimensions of utility, one could potentially triangulate a singular point of utility axes of type, relationship, and time. Collectively, the multiple different points of individual utility might be inferred to relate to a concept of aggregate utility. CONCLUSION This ontological framework requires retrospective and prospective application to enable refinement and validation. Moving forward our framework, and others which have preceded it, promote a better characterisation and description of genomic utility to inform decision-making and optimise the benefits of genomic diagnostic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Mallett
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Douglas, QLD, Australia.
- Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
- Department of Renal Medicine, Townsville University Hospital, Douglas, QLD, 4029, Australia.
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Fehlberg Z, Best S, Long JC, Theodorou T, Pope C, Hibbert P, Williams S, Freeman L, Righetti S, Archibald AD, Braithwaite J. Scaling-up and future sustainability of a national reproductive genetic carrier screening program. NPJ Genom Med 2023; 8:18. [PMID: 37524740 PMCID: PMC10390466 DOI: 10.1038/s41525-023-00357-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2023] [Indexed: 08/02/2023] Open
Abstract
An understanding of factors influencing implementation is essential to realise the benefits of population-based reproductive genetic carrier screening programs. The aim of this study was to synthesise data collected during the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission) to track how priorities shifted over time and identify important factors during scaling-up and for sustainment. We used a multi-method qualitative approach to integrate longitudinal project data collected from 10 project committees with 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with study team members. Both datasets were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify constructs of interest within early, mid-point, and future implementation phases. Several CFIR constructs were present across implementation. The complexity of implementation presented challenges that were overcome through a quality-designed and packaged product, formal and informal networks and communication, and access to knowledge and information. Addressing the diverse consumer needs through resources and increasing community and non-genetic speciality engagement remained a priority throughout and for future sustainment. Going forward, further addressing program complexities and securing funding were emphasised. By applying an implementation framework, findings from this study may be useful for future effort towards building and/or sustaining reproductive genetic carrier screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Dept of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Tahlia Theodorou
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Catherine Pope
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Peter Hibbert
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- IIMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Sharon Williams
- School of Health & Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, UK
| | - Lucinda Freeman
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Sarah Righetti
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Sydney, Australia
| | - Alison D Archibald
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Heath Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Best S, Al Mahmud A, Tyagi S, Wheeler JCW, Forkan ARM, Lewis A, Shuakat N, Kaul R, Ward A, Wickramasinghe N, Jayaraman PP, Trainer AH. Development of a person-centred digital platform for the long-term support of people living with an adult-onset genetic disease predisposition: a mixed-methods study protocol. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e071492. [PMID: 37518079 PMCID: PMC10387643 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071492] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/01/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Individuals at an inherited high-risk of developing adult-onset disease, such as breast cancer, are rare in the population. These individuals require lifelong clinical, psychological and reproductive assistance. After a positive germline test result, clinical genetic services provide support and care coordination. However, ongoing systematic clinical follow-up programmes are uncommon. Digital health solutions offer efficient and sustainable ways to deliver affordable and equitable care. This paper outlines the codesign and development of a digital health platform to facilitate long-term clinical and psychological care, and foster self-efficacy in individuals with a genetic disease predisposition. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We adopt a mixed-methods approach for data gathering and analysis. Data collection is in two phases. In phase 1, 300 individuals with a high-risk genetic predisposition to adult disease will undertake an online survey to assess their use of digital health applications (apps). In phase 2, we will conduct focus groups with 40 individuals with a genetic predisposition to cardiac or cancer syndromes, and 30 clinicians from diverse specialities involved in their care. These focus groups will inform the platform's content, functionality and user interface design, as well as identify the barriers and enablers to the adoption and retention of the platform by all endusers. The focus groups will be audiorecorded and transcribed, and thematic and content data analysis will be undertaken by adopting the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Descriptive statistics will be calculated from the survey data. Phase 3 will identify the core skillsets for a novel digital health coordinator role. Outcomes from phases 1 and 2 will inform development of the digital platform, which will be user-tested and optimised in phase 4. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study was approved by the Peter MacCallum Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/88892/PMCC). Results will be disseminated in academic forums, peer-reviewed publications and used to optimise clinical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Abdullah Al Mahmud
- Centre for Design Innovation, Department of Architectural and Industrial Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
| | - Shivani Tyagi
- Department of Communication Design, School of Design and Architecture, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jack C W Wheeler
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Alexandra Lewis
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nadeem Shuakat
- Department of Computing Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Health Sciences and Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
| | - Rohit Kaul
- Department of Computing Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
| | - Aisha Ward
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nilmini Wickramasinghe
- Department of Health Sciences and Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
- Iverson Health Innovation Research Institute, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
| | - Prem Prakash Jayaraman
- Department of Computing Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
| | - Alison H Trainer
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Taylor N, McKay S, Long JC, Gaff C, North K, Braithwaite J, Francis JJ, Best S. Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice. Implement Sci 2023; 18:29. [PMID: 37475088 PMCID: PMC10360252 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01284-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Disentangling the interplay between experience-based intuition and theory-informed implementation is crucial for identifying the direct contribution theory can make for generating behaviour changes needed for successful evidence translation. In the context of 'clinicogenomics', a complex and rapidly evolving field demanding swift practice change, we aimed to (a) describe a combined clinician intuition- and theory-driven method for identifying determinants of and strategies for implementing clinicogenomics, and (b) articulate a structured approach to standardise hypothesised behavioural pathways and make potential underlying theory explicit. METHODS Interview data from 16 non-genetic medical specialists using genomics in practice identified three target behaviour areas across the testing process: (1) identifying patients, (2) test ordering and reporting, (3) communicating results. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to group barriers and facilitators to performing these actions. Barriers were grouped by distinct TDF domains, with 'overarching' TDF themes identified for overlapping barriers. Clinician intuitively-derived implementation strategies were matched with corresponding barriers, and retrospectively coded against behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Where no intuitive strategies were provided, theory-driven strategies were generated. An algorithm was developed and applied to articulate how implementation strategies address barriers to influence behaviour change. RESULTS Across all target behaviour areas, 32 identified barriers were coded across seven distinct TDF domains and eight overarching TDF themes. Within the 29 intuitive strategies, 21 BCTs were represented and used on 49 occasions to address 23 barriers. On 10 (20%) of these occasions, existing empirical links were found between BCTs and corresponding distinct TDF-coded barriers. Twenty additional theory-driven implementation strategies (using 19 BCTs on 31 occasions) were developed to address nine remaining barriers. CONCLUSION Clinicians naturally generate their own solutions when implementing clinical interventions, and in this clinicogenomics example these intuitive strategies aligned with theoretical recommendations 20% of the time. We have matched intuitive strategies with theory-driven BCTs to make potential underlying theory explicit through proposed structured hypothesised causal pathways. Transparency and efficiency are enhanced, providing a novel method to identify determinants of implementation. Operationalising this approach to support the design of implementation strategies may optimise practice change in response to rapidly evolving scientific advances requiring swift translation into healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, High Street Kensington, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
| | - Skye McKay
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, High Street Kensington, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Kathryn North
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jill J Francis
- School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Bouffler SE, Lee L, Lynch F, Martyn M, Lynch E, Macciocca I, Curnow L, McCorkell G, Lunke S, Chong B, Marum JE, Delatycki M, Downie L, Goranitis I, Vears DF, Best S, Clausen M, Bombard Y, Stark Z, Gaff CL. Two-step offer and return of multiple types of additional genomic findings to families after ultrarapid trio genomic testing in the acute care setting: a study protocol. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e072999. [PMID: 37270192 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072999] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ling Lee
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Fiona Lynch
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Melissa Martyn
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Elly Lynch
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ivan Macciocca
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lisette Curnow
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Giulia McCorkell
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sebastian Lunke
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Belinda Chong
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Justine E Marum
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Martin Delatycki
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lilian Downie
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne Schoold of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Danya F Vears
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Marc Clausen
- Genomics Health Services Research Program, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yvonne Bombard
- Genomics Health Services Research Program, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Clara L Gaff
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Beadell I, Byun M, Feller H, Ferrie M, Best S. Co-designing interventions to 'live well': experiences and perceptions of the Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease (GUaRD) community. J Community Genet 2023:10.1007/s12687-023-00643-1. [PMID: 37000401 PMCID: PMC10063929 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-023-00643-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 03/15/2023] [Indexed: 04/01/2023] Open
Abstract
The Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease community faces a range of hurdles to live their 'best life' including physical, social and psychological barriers. They are also resilient and experiential experts with insight into what works and what could work for them. In this study, we aimed to identify and prioritise practical interventions the Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease community report could help them to 'live well'. Using a three-stage approach, we first analysed data from a year-long Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease journal study to record all the practical interventions reported, either trialled or proposed. Second, after grouping the interventions (n = 19) into four themes (support for individuals with GUaRD; support for carers of people with GUaRD; education/employment; transition), we presented the interventions to members of the GUaRD community (people with GUaRD, their carers and peer support group members) across three focus groups (n = 13). Focus group transcripts were analysed for refinements to the interventions, barriers and/or enablers to enacting them and for any additional interventions suggested. From this analysis, the interventions were grouped to identify specific actionable activities (n = 8). Finally, these eight interventions were discussed in a workshop with the GUaRD Community Advisory Group and prioritised using the APEASE framework. Prioritised interventions targeted a range of stakeholders and included creating a lived experience video library, supporting peer support groups with grant applications, and educating clinicians about referring to peer support groups. Further research is now required to test these findings before trialling and evaluating an intervention to measure the impact on the GUaRD community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Inez Beadell
- Department of Medicine, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Malia Byun
- California Lutheran University, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA
| | - Hollie Feller
- Genetic Support Network Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Monica Ferrie
- Genetic Support Network Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Dadich A, Wells R, Williams SJ, Taskin N, Coskun M, Grenier C, Ponsignon F, Scahill S, Best S. Cues Disseminated by Professional Associations That Represent 5 Health Care Professions Across 5 Nations: Lexical Analysis of Tweets. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25:e42927. [PMID: 36920443 PMCID: PMC10131722 DOI: 10.2196/42927] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2022] [Revised: 01/09/2023] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Collaboration across health care professions is critical in efficiently and effectively managing complex and chronic health conditions, yet interprofessional care does not happen automatically. Professional associations have a key role in setting a profession's agenda, maintaining professional identity, and establishing priorities. The associations' external communication is commonly undertaken through social media platforms, such as Twitter. Despite the valuable insights potentially available into professional associations through such communication, to date, their messaging has not been examined. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to identify the cues disseminated by professional associations that represent 5 health care professions spanning 5 nations. METHODS Using a back-iterative application programming interface methodology, public tweets were sourced from professional associations that represent 5 health care professions that have key roles in community-based health care: general practice, nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy, and social work. Furthermore, the professional associations spanned Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A lexical analysis was conducted of the tweets using Leximancer (Leximancer Pty Ltd) to clarify relationships within the discourse. RESULTS After completing a lexical analysis of 50,638 tweets, 7 key findings were identified. First, the discourse was largely devoid of references to interprofessional care. Second, there was no explicit discourse pertaining to physiotherapists. Third, although all the professions represented in this study support patients, discourse pertaining to general practitioners was most likely to be connected with that pertaining to patients. Fourth, tweets pertaining to pharmacists were most likely to be connected with discourse pertaining to latest and research. Fifth, tweets about social workers were unlikely to be connected with discourse pertaining to health or care. Sixth, notwithstanding a few exceptions, the findings across the different nations were generally similar, suggesting their generality. Seventh and last, tweets pertaining to physiotherapists were most likely to refer to discourse pertaining to profession. CONCLUSIONS The findings indicate that health care professional associations do not use Twitter to disseminate cues that reinforce the importance of interprofessional care. Instead, they largely use this platform to emphasize what they individually deem to be important and advance the interests of their respective professions. Therefore, there is considerable opportunity for professional associations to assert how the profession they represent complements other health care professions and how the professionals they represent can enact interprofessional care for the benefit of patients and carers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ann Dadich
- School of Business, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, Australia
| | - Rebecca Wells
- Department of Management, Policy and Community Health, University of Texas, Texas, TX, United States
| | - Sharon J Williams
- School of Health & Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom
| | - Nazim Taskin
- Department of Management Information Systems, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Coskun
- Department of Management Information Systems, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | | | | | - Shane Scahill
- Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Stark Z, Boughtwood T, Haas M, Braithwaite J, Gaff CL, Goranitis I, Spurdle AB, Hansen DP, Hofmann O, Laing N, Metcalfe S, Newson AJ, Scott HS, Thorne N, Ward RL, Dinger ME, Best S, Long JC, Grimmond SM, Pearson J, Waddell N, Barnett CP, Cook M, Field M, Fielding D, Fox SB, Gecz J, Jaffe A, Leventer RJ, Lockhart PJ, Lunke S, Mallett AJ, McGaughran J, Mileshkin L, Nones K, Roscioli T, Scheffer IE, Semsarian C, Simons C, Thomas DM, Thorburn DR, Tothill R, White D, Dunwoodie S, Simpson PT, Phillips P, Brion MJ, Finlay K, Quinn MC, Mattiske T, Tudini E, Boggs K, Murray S, Wells K, Cannings J, Sinclair AH, Christodoulou J, North KN. Australian Genomics: Outcomes of a 5-year national program to accelerate the integration of genomics in healthcare. Am J Hum Genet 2023; 110:419-426. [PMID: 36868206 PMCID: PMC10027474 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.01.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2022] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Australian Genomics is a national collaborative partnership of more than 100 organizations piloting a whole-of-system approach to integrating genomics into healthcare, based on federation principles. In the first five years of operation, Australian Genomics has evaluated the outcomes of genomic testing in more than 5,200 individuals across 19 rare disease and cancer flagship studies. Comprehensive analyses of the health economic, policy, ethical, legal, implementation and workforce implications of incorporating genomics in the Australian context have informed evidence-based change in policy and practice, resulting in national government funding and equity of access for a range of genomic tests. Simultaneously, Australian Genomics has built national skills, infrastructure, policy, and data resources to enable effective data sharing to drive discovery research and support improvements in clinical genomic delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Tiffany Boughtwood
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Childhood Dementia Initiative, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Matilda Haas
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; International Society for Quality in Health Care, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Clara L Gaff
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Amanda B Spurdle
- Population Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - David P Hansen
- Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Oliver Hofmann
- University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Nigel Laing
- Centre for Medical Research, University of Western Australia, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Sylvia Metcalfe
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hamish S Scott
- Department of Genetics and Molecular Pathology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Centre for Cancer Biology, SA Pathology and University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Natalie Thorne
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Robyn L Ward
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Marcel E Dinger
- School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sean M Grimmond
- University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - John Pearson
- Genome Informatics Group, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Nicola Waddell
- Medical Genomics Group, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Christopher P Barnett
- Paediatric and Reproductive Genetics Unit, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Matthew Cook
- Centre for Personalised Immunology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Puddicombe Way, Cambridge, UK
| | - Michael Field
- Genetics of Learning Disability Service, Hunter Genetics, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | - David Fielding
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Stephen B Fox
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Pathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Jozef Gecz
- Adelaide Medical School and Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Adam Jaffe
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Richard J Leventer
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Neurology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Paul J Lockhart
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Bruce Lefroy Centre, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Sebastian Lunke
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrew J Mallett
- KidGen Collaborative, Australian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Renal Medicine, Townsville University Hospital, Townsville, QLD, Australia; College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia; Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Julie McGaughran
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Linda Mileshkin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Katia Nones
- Medical Genomics Group, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Tony Roscioli
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Randwick Genomics Laboratory, NSW Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) and Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Ingrid E Scheffer
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Neurology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Christopher Semsarian
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Agnes Ginges Centre for Molecular Cardiology at Centenary Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Cardiology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Cas Simons
- Centre for Population Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Centre for Population Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, and University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - David M Thomas
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - David R Thorburn
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Richard Tothill
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Clinical Pathology and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Deborah White
- Blood Cancer Program, Precision Cancer Medicine Theme, The South Australian Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia; Faculty of Health and Medical Science, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Sally Dunwoodie
- School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Peter T Simpson
- Centre for Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Peta Phillips
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Marie-Jo Brion
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Keri Finlay
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Michael Cj Quinn
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia
| | - Tessa Mattiske
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Emma Tudini
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Kirsten Boggs
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Westmead, NSW, Australia
| | - Sean Murray
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Mito Foundation, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Kathy Wells
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Breast Cancer Network Australia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - John Cannings
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; ProCan, Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Andrew H Sinclair
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - John Christodoulou
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Kathryn N North
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Roberts N, Carrigan A, Clay-Williams R, Hibbert PD, Mahmoud Z, Pomare C, Fajardo Pulido D, Meulenbroeks I, Knaggs GT, Austin EE, Churruca K, Ellis LA, Long JC, Hutchinson K, Best S, Nic Giolla Easpaig B, Sarkies MN, Francis Auton E, Hatem S, Dammery G, Nguyen MT, Nguyen HM, Arnolda G, Rapport F, Zurynski Y, Maka K, Braithwaite J. Innovative models of healthcare delivery: an umbrella review of reviews. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e066270. [PMID: 36822811 PMCID: PMC9950590 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066270] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/25/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To undertake a synthesis of evidence-based research for seven innovative models of care to inform the development of new hospitals. DESIGN Umbrella review. SETTING Interventions delivered inside and outside of acute care settings. PARTICIPANTS Children and adults with one or more identified acute or chronic health conditions. DATA SOURCES PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES Clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, self-management and self-care and patient knowledge. RESULTS A total of 66 reviews were included, synthesising evidence from 1272 primary studies across the 7 models of care. Virtual care was the most common model studied, addressed by 47 (73%) of the reviews. Common outcomes evaluated across reviews were clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, self-care and self-management, patient knowledge, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The findings indicate that the innovative models of healthcare we identified in this review may be effective in managing patients with a range of acute and chronic conditions. Most of the included reviews reported evidence of comparable or improved care. CONCLUSIONS A consideration of local infrastructure and individual patient characteristics, such as health literacy, may be critical in determining the suitability of models of care for patients and their implementation in local health systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER 10.17605/OSF.IO/PS6ZU.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Roberts
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ann Carrigan
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Robyn Clay-Williams
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Peter D Hibbert
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Zeyad Mahmoud
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- LEMNA, F-44000, Universite de Nantes, Nantes, France
| | - Chiara Pomare
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Diana Fajardo Pulido
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Isabelle Meulenbroeks
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Gilbert Thomas Knaggs
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Elizabeth E Austin
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Kate Churruca
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Louise A Ellis
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Karen Hutchinson
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Brona Nic Giolla Easpaig
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Mitchell N Sarkies
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Emilie Francis Auton
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sarah Hatem
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Genevieve Dammery
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Mai-Tran Nguyen
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Hoa Mi Nguyen
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Gaston Arnolda
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Frances Rapport
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Yvonne Zurynski
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Katherine Maka
- Western Sydney Local Health District, Wentworthville, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Best S, Long JC, Braithwaite J, Taylor N. Standardizing variation: Scaling up clinical genomics in Australia. Genet Med 2023; 25:100109. [PMID: 35115231 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2021] [Revised: 01/03/2022] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical genomics demands close interaction of physicians, laboratory scientists, and genetic professionals. Taking genomics to scale requires an understanding of the underlying processes from the perspective of nongenetic physicians who are new to the field. We identified components of the processes amenable to adaptation when scaling up clinical genomics. METHODS Semistructured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework with nongenetic physicians, who were using clinical genomics in practice, were guided by an annotated process map with 7 steps following the patient's journey. Findings from the individual maps were synthesized into an overview process map and a series of individual maps by common location and specialty. Interviews were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS In total, 16 nongenetic physicians (eg, nephrologists, immunologists) participated, generating 1 overview and 10 individual process maps. Sixteen common steps were identified across clinical specialties and locations, with variations over 9 steps. We report the potential for standardization across these 9 steps. CONCLUSION When scaling up complex interventions, it is essential to identify steps where variation can be accommodated. With these results we show how process mapping can be used to identify steps where variation is acceptable during scale up to accommodate adaptation to local context, allowing for the inevitable evolution of factors influencing ongoing implementation and sustainability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Lynch F, Meng Y, Best S, Goranitis I, Savulescu J, Gyngell C, Vears DF. Australian public perspectives on genomic data storage and sharing: Benefits, concerns and access preferences. Eur J Med Genet 2023; 66:104676. [PMID: 36473622 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2022.104676] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2022] [Revised: 11/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Diagnostic genomic sequencing generates unprecedented amounts of data. In addition to its primary use, this data could be used for a wide range of secondary purposes, including research and informing future healthcare for the data donor. These opportunities may require data to be shared with third parties. Although effective data sharing relies on public support, there are barriers which may prevent people from choosing to donate their genomic data and surprisingly few studies explore these barriers in depth. To address this need, this study aimed to qualitatively explore the Australian public's views and preferences for storing and sharing genomic data. Online focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive content analysis. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted with 39 members of the Australian public ranging from 18 to 67 years of age. Participants were mostly supportive of genomic data being stored and shared for secondary purposes, recognising the potential benefits for individual health and wider medical research. However, some concerns were identified. Participants felt genomic data was particularly sensitive information, and raised the potential for discrimination, stigma, and other malicious uses of such data. Concerns for privacy and security of the data were also prevalent. Trustworthiness of data users was important when considering who genomic data should be shared with. Although participants were supportive of data being freely available to health professionals and researchers, they were opposed to insurance companies and employers accessing the data. There was greater controversy around sharing data with law enforcement and pharmaceutical companies. Participants recognised both benefits and harms to sharing with law enforcement. They were also cognizant of the dual purpose of pharmaceutical companies as both research and profit-driven organisations. Finally, participants expressed varying perspectives about sharing genomic data with family members, yet most agreed that explicit consent from the data donor should be required to share their information with relatives. This study highlighted several of the Australian public's perceived barriers and motivators for the storage and sharing of genomic data. Participants recognised both the benefits of collecting, storing and sharing such data widely but also the potential for harm from data misuse. While public acceptance of such endeavours is required to maximise the volume of data made available, the concerns around data access and security need to be addressed before this can occur. These findings also highlight the nuance and ethical complexity of decisions about who we should allow to access donated genomic data. These perspectives will be essential in helping to shape the way large-scale genomic data storage and sharing is developed and implemented in Australia, and internationally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Lynch
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia
| | - Yan Meng
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Australia
| | - Julian Savulescu
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Christopher Gyngell
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia
| | - Danya F Vears
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Robertson EG, Kelada L, Best S, Goranitis I, Grainger N, Le Marne F, Pierce K, Nevin SM, Macintosh R, Beavis E, Sachdev R, Bye A, Palmer EE. Acceptability and feasibility of an online information linker service for caregivers who have a child with genetic epilepsy: a mixed-method pilot study protocol. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e063249. [PMID: 36288836 PMCID: PMC9615979 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063249] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs) are rare epilepsy conditions that collectively impact 1 in 2000 children. They are highly genetically heterogeneous, resulting in significant barriers to accurate and adequate information for caregivers. This can lead to increased distress and dissatisfaction with the healthcare system. To address this gap, we developed 'GenE Compass' to provide caregivers with the highest-quality possible, understandable and relevant information in response to specific questions about their child's DEE. Using a mixed-method design, we will now pilot GenE Compass to evaluate the acceptability to caregivers and clinicians, feasibility and impact to caregivers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will recruit 88 caregivers (estimated final sample of 50 at follow-up) who have a child under 18 years of age with a suspected or confirmed DEE diagnosis. Following consent and a baseline questionnaire (questionnaire 1 (Q1)), participants will be able to submit questions to GenE Compass over a 3-month period. After 3 months, participants will complete a follow-up questionnaire (Q2) and an optional telephone interview to answer the research questions. Primary outcomes are acceptability of GenE Compass and feasibility of delivering the intervention (eg, cost of the intervention, number of questions submitted and time taken to respond to questions). Secondary outcomes include the impact of GenE Compass on caregivers' quality of life, information searching behaviours, perceptions of their child's illness and activation. ETHICS AND DISCUSSION The study protocol (V.2, dated 16 September 2021) has been approved by the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee (ETH11277). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. A lay summary will be disseminated to all participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ACTRN12621001544864.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eden G Robertson
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Lauren Kelada
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - I Goranitis
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Natalie Grainger
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Fleur Le Marne
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Neurology, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Kristine Pierce
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Epilepsy Foundation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Suzanne M Nevin
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rebecca Macintosh
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Erin Beavis
- Department of Neurology, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rani Sachdev
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Annie Bye
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Neurology, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Elizabeth E Palmer
- Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, UNSW, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Long JC, Best S, Nic Giolla Easpaig B, Hatem S, Fehlberg Z, Christodoulou J, Braithwaite J. Needs of people with rare diseases that can be supported by electronic resources: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e060394. [PMID: 36581982 PMCID: PMC9438091 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Rare diseases are characterised by low incidence, often with little evidence for effective treatments. Isolated patients and specialist centres for rare diseases are increasingly connected, thanks to the internet. This scoping review aimed to identify issues facing people with a rare disease that authors report may be addressed by electronic resources (mobile applications, websites, social media platforms, telehealth and online portals). DESIGN Scoping review guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase and PsycInfo were searched, supplemented by hand searches of selected journals, in July 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Peer-reviewed literature in English was searched using terms for rare disease (incidence <1:2000), electronic modalities (eg, mobile phone) and patient support terms. No date limit was set. Conference abstracts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data extracted: rare disease/group of diseases, name of the e-resource, need identified in the patient cohort, features of the e-resource, any other findings or observations of interest. From this, a framework was developed synthesising features across diseases and resources. RESULTS Seventy-two papers were found (from 383). Fifty-six electronic resources were described in 64 papers, while 12 papers were exploratory studies. Cystic fibrosis (n=28) was the most frequently addressed, followed by haemophilia (n=16).Four domains and 23 subdomains of needs were extracted from the papers. The domains of needs were: support for self-management, access to high-quality information, access to appropriate specialist services, and social support. Subdomains are sometimes related to needs of individual rare diseases (eg, social isolation due to infection risk in people with cystic fibrosis). Fifteen electronic resources were identified that supported parents of children with rare disorders. CONCLUSIONS While it can be argued that rare diseases, per se, may be no less distressing or onerous to care for than a high prevalence disease, rare diseases have unique features: the lengthy odyssey to find a diagnosis, then appropriate specialists, the lack of evidence around effective treatments, guidelines or access to knowledgeable general health service providers. Designers of electronic resources are urged to consult key stakeholders to enhance the effectiveness and usability of resources for people with a rare disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sarah Hatem
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - John Christodoulou
- Brain and Mitochondrial Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Hatem S, Long JC, Best S, Fehlberg Z, Nic Giolla Easpaig B, Braithwaite J. Mobile Apps for People With Rare Diseases: Review and Quality Assessment Using Mobile App Rating Scale. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24:e36691. [PMID: 35881435 PMCID: PMC9364167 DOI: 10.2196/36691] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Revised: 05/27/2022] [Accepted: 06/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mobile apps are becoming increasingly popular, with 5.70 million apps available in early 2021. Smartphones can provide portable and convenient access to health apps. Here, we consider apps for people with one of the estimated 7000 rare conditions, which are defined as having an incidence of <1 in 2000. The needs of people with rare conditions are known to be different from those of people with more common conditions. The former may be socially isolated (not knowing anyone else who has the condition) and may not be able to find reliable information about the disorder. OBJECTIVE The aim of this review is to search for apps developed specifically for people diagnosed with a rare disease and to assess them for quality using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). We examine features that address 6 identified needs of people with a rare disorder and make recommendations for future developers. METHODS Google Play Store (Android) and Apple App Store (iOS) were searched for relevant health-related apps specifically for rare diseases. The search included the names of 10 rare disease groups. App quality was determined using MARS, assessing app engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information. RESULTS We found 29 relevant apps (from a total of 2272) addressing 14 rare diseases or disease groups. The most common rare conditions addressed were cystic fibrosis (n=6), hemophilia (n=5), and thalassemia (n=5). The most common app features were web-based information and symptom trackers. The mean MARS score was 3.44 (SD 0.84). Lowest scores were for engagement. CONCLUSIONS Most apps provided factual and visual information, providing tools for self-monitoring and resources to help improve interactions during health consultations. App origin and quality varied greatly. Developers are recommended to consider ways to make appropriate apps more easily identifiable to consumers, to always include high-quality information, improve engagement, provide qualitative evaluations of the app, and include consumers and clinicians in the design.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Hatem
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.,Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Zoe Fehlberg
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.,Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Best S, Vidic N, An K, Collins F, White SM. A systematic review of geographical inequities for accessing clinical genomic and genetic services for non-cancer related rare disease. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 30:645-652. [PMID: 35046503 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-01022-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2021] [Revised: 11/28/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Place plays a significant role in our health. As genetic/genomic services evolve and are increasingly seen as mainstream, especially within the field of rare disease, it is important to ensure that where one lives does not impede access to genetic/genomic services. Our aim was to identify barriers and enablers of geographical equity in accessing clinical genomic or genetic services. We undertook a systematic review searching for articles relating to geographical access to genetic/genomic services for rare disease. Searching the databases Medline, EMBASE and PubMed returned 1803 papers. Screening led to the inclusion of 20 articles for data extraction. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified four themes (i) Current service model design, (ii) Logistical issues facing clinicians and communities, (iii) Workforce capacity and capability and iv) Rural culture and consumer beliefs. Several themes were common to both rural and urban communities. However, many themes were exacerbated for rural populations due to a lack of clinician access to/relationships with genetic specialist staff, the need to provide more generalist services and a lack of genetic/genomic knowledge and skill. Additional barriers included long standing systemic service designs that are not fit for purpose due to historically ad hoc approaches to delivery of care. There were calls for needs assessments to clarify community needs. Enablers of geographically equitable care included the uptake of new innovative models of care and a call to raise both community and clinician knowledge and awareness to demystify the clinical offer from genetics/genomics services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. .,Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Nada Vidic
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Kim An
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Felicity Collins
- Clinical Genetics Service, Institute of Precision Medicine and Bioinformatics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Divisions of Genomic Medicine, Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Susan M White
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
D'Silva AM, Kariyawasam DST, Best S, Wiley V, Farrar MA. Integrating newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy into health care systems: an Australian pilot programme. Dev Med Child Neurol 2022; 64:625-632. [PMID: 34839535 PMCID: PMC9299803 DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Revised: 11/04/2021] [Accepted: 11/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
AIM This study dynamically designed, evaluated, and implemented the components of an Australian newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) pilot programme for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). METHOD We used an implementation-effectiveness study design and continuous interdisciplinary review to measure SMA NBS test protocol performance, identify and overcome laboratory and clinical barriers to implementation, and describe progress during the 2-year pilot study. RESULTS The NBS programme screened 252 081 newborn infants from 1st August 2018 to 31st January 2021. Using an NBS pilot test protocol, 21 infants were diagnostically confirmed with SMA. The NBS pilot test protocol had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity greater than 99.9%, false-positive rate less than 0.001%, a false-negative rate of 0%, and positive predictive value of 95.5%. A severe phenotype was predicted on the basis of two copies of SMN2 in 57.2% of newborn infants screening positive for SMA. Clinical signs consistent with SMA were evident in 6 out of 21 screen-positive newborn infants within the first 4 weeks of life. A multidisciplinary team establishing strong partnerships across clinical and laboratory staff was key to implementation. INTERPRETATION This pilot programme suggests that NBS is essential for early identification of newborn infants at risk of SMA and can be effectively translated into clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arlene M D'Silva
- Department of NeurologySydney Children’s Hospital NetworkSydneyNew South WalesAustralia,School of Women’s and Children’s HealthUniversity of New South Wales Medicine and HealthUniversity of New South WalesSydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Didu S T Kariyawasam
- Department of NeurologySydney Children’s Hospital NetworkSydneyNew South WalesAustralia,School of Women’s and Children’s HealthUniversity of New South Wales Medicine and HealthUniversity of New South WalesSydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health InnovationMacquarie UniversitySydneyNew South WalesAustralia,Australian GenomicsMurdoch Children’s Research InstituteMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Veronica Wiley
- NSW Newborn Screening ProgrammeChildren’s Hospital WestmeadWestmeadNew South WalesAustralia,Discipline of Child and Adolescent HealthSydney Medical SchoolFaculty of Medicine and HealthUniversity of SydneySydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Michelle A Farrar
- Department of NeurologySydney Children’s Hospital NetworkSydneyNew South WalesAustralia,School of Women’s and Children’s HealthUniversity of New South Wales Medicine and HealthUniversity of New South WalesSydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Brown HL, Sherburn IA, Gaff C, Taylor N, Best S. Structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics: A scoping review. Genet Med 2022; 24:1415-1424. [PMID: 35442192 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2021] [Revised: 03/18/2022] [Accepted: 03/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to assess the extent to which structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics, proposed or adapted, are informed by evidence. METHODS A systematic approach was used to identify peer-reviewed articles and gray literature to report on 4 research questions: 1. What structured approaches have been proposed to support implementation? 2. To what extent are the structured approaches informed by evidence? 3. How have structured approaches been deployed in the genomic setting? 4. What are the intended outcomes of the structured approaches? RESULTS A total of 30 unique structured approaches to implementation were reported across 23 peer-reviewed publications and 11 gray literature articles. Most approaches were process models, applied in the preadoption implementation phase, focusing on a "service" outcome. Key findings included a lack of implementation science theory informing the development/implementation of newly designed structured approaches in the genomic setting and a lack of measures to assess implementation effectiveness. CONCLUSION This scoping review identified a significant number of structured approaches developed to inform the implementation of genomic medicine into clinical practice, with limited use of implementation science to support the process. We recommend the use of existing implementation science theory and the expertise of implementation scientists to inform the design of genomic programs being implemented into clinical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen L Brown
- Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Isabella A Sherburn
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Australian Institute of Health Innovation (AIHI), Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Byun M, Feller H, Ferrie M, Best S. Living with a genetic, undiagnosed or rare disease: A longitudinal journalling study through the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Expect 2022; 25:2223-2234. [PMID: 35122367 PMCID: PMC9111564 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2021] [Revised: 11/04/2021] [Accepted: 11/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction COVID‐19 changed the way we lived with uncertainty from the outset as the pandemic impacted every aspect of our lives from well‐being, socializing to accessing healthcare. For people in vulnerable populations, such as those with genetic, undiagnosed and rare disorders, the experience was heightened. Aim The aim of this study was to identify how the rapidly changing COVID‐19 environment impacted the lives of the Genetic, Undiagnosed and Rare Disease community. Methods From June 2020 to May 2021, we collected monthly open‐ended journals from people living in Australia with genetic, undiagnosed and rare disorders. Data analysis was deductive, using the Resilience Scale for Adults, and inductive using thematic analysis. Results We recruited 29 people (average of n = 9.7 submissions each month). Responses changed over the year, with initial journals focusing on the importance of developing new structures for day‐to‐day lives, while later journals started to focus on mental well‐being. Throughout the project, participants reported challenges in accessing health and social care that was compounded by fear and concern over being exposed to the virus. Later journals highlight inconsistent messaging for vaccinations for this vulnerable community. Discussion/Conclusion In parallel with the waves of the COVID‐19 pandemic, there need to be waves of targeted support for vulnerable communities. The first support wave needs to focus on facilitating the identification of new frameworks to structure day‐to‐day lives. A later second wave needs to focus on mental well‐being and coping with isolation, while consistent communication relating to health and social care throughout was essential. Patient/Public Contribution This study was co‐designed, co‐led and analysed with a patient support network.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Malia Byun
- California Lutheran University, California, USA
| | - Hollie Feller
- Genetic Support Network Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Monica Ferrie
- Genetic Support Network Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.,Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Vidgen ME, Fowles LF, Istiko SN, Evans E, Cutler K, Sullivan K, Bean J, Healy L, Hondow G, McInerney-Leo AM, Pratt G, Robins D, Best S, Finlay K, Ramarao-Milne P, Waddell N. Evaluation of a Genetics Education Program for Health Interpreters: A Pilot Study. Front Genet 2022; 12:771892. [PMID: 35186003 PMCID: PMC8850313 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2021.771892] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2021] [Accepted: 12/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Health Interpreters enable effective communication between health practitioners and patients with limited knowledge of the predominant language. This study developed and evaluated a training session introducing Health Interpreters to genetics. The online training was delivered multiple times as a single 2-h session comprising lectures and activities. Participants completed questionnaires (pre-, post-, and 6-months follow-up) to assess the impact of training on knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, and self-reported practice behaviour. Questionnaires were analysed using descriptive statistics, Fisher’s Exact, or independent t-test. In total, 118 interpreters participated in the training sessions. Respondent knowledge improved, with gains maintained at 6-months (p < 0.01). There were no changes in self-efficacy, and attitudes. Training did not change self-reported practice behaviour, but there was notable pre-existing variability in participants’ methods of managing unknown genetic words. Most respondents agreed that training was useful (93%) and relevant (79%) to their work. More respondents reported learning more from the case study activity (86%) than the group activity (58%). Health Interpreters found the training acceptable and demonstrated sustained improvement in knowledge of genetic concepts. Increased delivery of this training and associated research is needed to assess findings in a larger cohort and to measure the impact on patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miranda E. Vidgen
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- *Correspondence: Miranda E. Vidgen,
| | - Lindsay F. Fowles
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Satrio Nindyo Istiko
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Erin Evans
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Health Consumers Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Katrina Cutler
- Queensland Genomics, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Kate Sullivan
- Queensland Genomics, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Jessica Bean
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Louise Healy
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Gary Hondow
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Aideen M. McInerney-Leo
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Gregory Pratt
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Deborah Robins
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Keri Finlay
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Genetic Support Network of Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Priya Ramarao-Milne
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Australian e-Health Research Centre, Health and Biosecurity, CSIRO, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Nicola Waddell
- QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Queensland Genomics Community Advisory Group, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Best S, Williams SJ. What Have We Learnt About the Sourcing of Personal Protective Equipment During Pandemics? Leadership and Management in Healthcare Supply Chain Management: A Scoping Review. Front Public Health 2021; 9:765501. [PMID: 34957018 PMCID: PMC8695796 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.765501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic there have been much publicised shortages in Personal Protective Equipment for frontline health care workers, from masks to gowns. Recent previous airborne pandemics provide an opportunity to learn how to effectively lead and manage supply chains during crisis situations. Identifying and plotting this learning against time will reveal what has been learnt, when and, significantly, what can be learnt for the future. Aims: (i) To identify the temporal trajectory of leadership and management learning in health supply chain management through pandemics and (ii) to identify leadership and management lessons to enable the resilient supply of key items such as PPE in future pandemics. Methods: We undertook a scoping review in line with PRISMA (scoping review extension) searching Business Source Premier, Health Business Elite, Medline, ProQuest Business Collection and PubMed. Search terms were focused on recent airborne pandemics (SARS; Ebola; Zika virus; H1N1 swine flu, COVID-19), supply chain management, PPE, leadership, learning, inhibitors and facilitators and resilience e.g., SARS AND supply chain* AND ("personal protective equipment" OR PPE) (leaders* OR manage*) Titles and abstracts were downloaded to Endnote and duplicates removed. Two authors independently screened all of the titles and abstracts. Inclusion criteria focused on leadership and management in health supply chains during pandemics, peer reviewed or grey literature (either from business journals or reports): exclusion criteria included not in English and not focused on a named pandemic. Once interrater reliability was assured, authors completed a title and abstract screening independently. Ten percent of the resultant full text articles were screened by both authors, once agreement was reached the full text articles were screened independently noting reasons for exclusion. A data extraction tool was designed to capture findings from the final articles included in the review. Results/Discussion: We found 92 articles and, after screening, included 30 full text articles. The majority were focused on COVID-19 (N = 27) and most were from the USA (N = 13). We identified four themes related to leadership and management of pandemic PPE supply chains, (i) Leadership and management learning for pandemic PPE supply chain management, (ii) Inhibitors of PPE supply chain resilience during a pandemic, (iii) Facilitators employed to manage the immediate impacts of PPE supply chain demands during a pandemic,and (iv) Facilitators proposed to ensure longer term resilience of PPE supply chains during pandemics Our study suggests there has been limited leadership and management learning for PPE supply chains from previous pandemics, however there has been extensive learning through the COVID-19 pandemic. Lessons included the importance of planning, the significance of collaboration and relationship building. Resilience of PPE supply chains was reported to be dependent on multiple levels from individuals to organisation level and also interdependent on (i) sustainability, (ii) the practise of PPE and (iii) long term environmental impact of PPE suggesting the need, long term, to move to a circular economy approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Sharon J Williams
- School of Health and Social Care, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Best S, Brown H, Stark Z, Long JC, Ng L, Braithwaite J, Taylor N. Teamwork in clinical genomics: A dynamic sociotechnical healthcare setting. J Eval Clin Pract 2021; 27:1369-1380. [PMID: 33949753 DOI: 10.1111/jep.13573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2020] [Revised: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 04/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Teamworking across sociotechnical boundaries in healthcare is growing as technological advances in medicine abound. With this progress, teams need to find new ways of working together in non-traditional settings. The novel field of clinical genomics provides the opportunity to rethink the existing approach to teamworking and how it needs to evolve. Our aim was to identify the key factors influencing teamworking in the emerging field of clinical genomics and how can they be applied in practice. METHOD We drew on three qualitative datasets from interviews undertaken in Australia, 2018/2019, that explored determinants of implementation of clinical genomics with laboratory scientists (n = 7), service and programme leads (n = 21), project officers (n = 2), clinical genetics staff (n = 26) and other medical specialists (n = 21). Data were analysed using a theory-informed matrix approach to identify themes related to teamworking. RESULTS We identify that teams in clinical genomics work in an elongated adaptive context where there is rapid evolution of the knowledge base, shifting expectations of staff roles, and fast changes of technology. Delivering care in this setting brings additional challenges to teamworking as members strive to stay abreast of current knowledge and technology. We identify four themes: (a) the role of the team in keeping knowledge up-to-date; (b) professional identity; (c) team adaptability, and (d) practical/organisational considerations. CONCLUSION Challenges to teamworking that arise in the elongated adaptive context do not always fit traditional ways of working, and innovative strategies will need to be adopted to ensure the diagnostic advances of clinical genomics are realised. Provision of time and permission for team members to share knowledge and evolve, promoting capacity building, nurturing trustful relationships and establishing boundaries are amongst the practice recommendations for organisational and team leaders, even though these activities may disrupt existing ways of working or hierarchical structures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.,Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Royal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Helen Brown
- Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Zornitza Stark
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Royal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.,Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Royal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.,Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Larissa Ng
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Royal Childrens Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.,Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Uebergang E, Best S, de Silva MG, Finlay K. Understanding genomic health information: how to meet the needs of the culturally and linguistically diverse community-a mixed methods study. J Community Genet 2021; 12:549-557. [PMID: 34185265 PMCID: PMC8554909 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00537-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2020] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Clinical genomic testing, analysis of your entire genetic material for healthcare purposes, is a complex topic for various medical specialities. Although Australia is a multicultural society, most genomic resources are produced in English which can make understanding challenging for people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. A mixed methods approach explored the views of healthcare interpreters and people from CALD backgrounds to identify knowledge gaps and inform the provision of more equitable services. Eighteen healthcare interpreters completed a survey from two public hospitals in Melbourne. Descriptive data analysis informed the four pilot interviews with individuals from CALD backgrounds identified through online advertisements. Interpreters revealed variable satisfaction with patient understanding of genomic concepts and suggested that basic training and resources on genomics would help facilitate interpretation. Three themes arose from the pilot interviews: (1) cultural factors; (2) perceptions of genomics; and (3) language barriers and complex terminology. Resources that consider cultural differences and language barriers will help to ensure people from CALD backgrounds are adequately informed about genomic testing. The pilot interviews will inform future in-depth studies of the views of people from the CALD community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eloise Uebergang
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Stephanie Best
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Michelle G de Silva
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Keri Finlay
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Genetic Support Network of Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Best S, Long JC, Gaff C, Braithwaite J, Taylor N. Organizational perspectives on implementing complex health interventions: clinical genomics in Australia. J Health Organ Manag 2021; ahead-of-print. [PMID: 34283896 DOI: 10.1108/jhom-12-2020-0495] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia.,Australian Genomics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia.,The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- Cancer Council New South Wales, Woolloomooloo, Australia.,The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Long JC, Best S, Hatem S, Theodorou T, Catton T, Murray S, Braithwaite J, Christodoulou J. The long and winding road: perspectives of people and parents of children with mitochondrial conditions negotiating management after diagnosis. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2021; 16:310. [PMID: 34256797 PMCID: PMC8276535 DOI: 10.1186/s13023-021-01939-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 06/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The diagnostic odyssey for people with a rare disease is well known, but difficulties do not stop at diagnosis. Here we investigate the experience of people, or parents of children with a diagnosed mitochondrial respiratory chain disorder (MRCD) in the management of their disease. The work complements ongoing projects around implementation of consensus recommendations for management of people with MRCD. People with or caring for a child with a formally diagnosed MRCD were invited to take part in an hour-long focus group held via videoconference. Questions elicited experiences of receiving management advice or information specific to their MRCD in four areas drawn from the consensus recommendations: diet and supplements, exercise, access to social services, and mental health. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. Results Focus groups were conducted with 20 participants from five Australian states in June–September 2020. Fourteen adults with a MRCD (three of whom also had a child with a MRCD), and six who cared for a child with a MRCD took part. The overarching finding was that of the need for ongoing negotiation to access the advice and service required to manage their condition. The nature of these negotiations varied across contexts but mostly related to joint decision-making, and more commonly, the need to advocate for their care with non-specialist services (e.g., dieticians, schools). The effort required for this self-advocacy was a prominent theme. While most participants reported receiving adequate advice around supplements, and to a lesser extent diet and exercise, the majority reported no formal advice around mental health or practical assistance accessing social services. Conclusion These focus groups have revealed several gaps in the system for people with a MRCD, interacting with care providers after diagnosis. Focus group participants had to negotiate with a range of different stakeholders in order to secure appropriate advice or services. Notable was the gap in appropriate generalist services (e.g., dieticians) with sufficient knowledge of MRCD to support people with their day-to-day challenges. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-021-01939-6.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.,Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sarah Hatem
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Tahlia Theodorou
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | | | | | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - John Christodoulou
- Department of Paediatrics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Best S, Beech C, Robbé IJ, Williams S. Interprofessional teamwork: the role of professional identity and signature pedagogy - a mixed methods study. J Health Organ Manag 2021; ahead-of-print. [PMID: 33739777 DOI: 10.1108/jhom-06-2020-0242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE One overlooked determinant of interprofessional teamwork is the mobilisation of professional identity. Taking a health or social care practitioner out of their professional silo and placing them in an interprofessional team setting will challenge their professional identity. The theory of signature pedagogy was used to investigate the challenges and what is needed to support practitioners to mobilise their professional identity to maximise teamwork. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH A cross-sectional mixed methods study was undertaken in the form of three focus groups, with members of health and social care teams in Wales, UK. Using nominal group technique, participants explored and ranked the challenges and benefits of mobilising their professional identity within an interprofessional setting. FINDINGS Findings on mobilising professional identity were found to be aligned closely with the three signature pedagogy apprenticeships of learning to think and to perform like others in their profession and to act with moral integrity. The biggest challenge facing practitioners was thinking like others in their profession while in an interprofessional team. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS The focus of this study is health and social care teams within Wales, UK, which may limit the results to teams that have a similar representation of professionals. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Healthcare leaders should be aware of the opportunities to promote mobilisation of professional identity to maximise teamwork. For example, at induction, by introducing the different roles and shared responsibilities. Such practical implications do have consequences for policy as regards interprofessional team development and organisational commitments to adult learning and evaluation. ORIGINALITY/VALUE This is the first study of professional identity of interprofessional healthcare and social professionals using signature pedagogy to gain a better understanding of teamwork.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.,Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
| | - Christian Beech
- College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| | | | - Sharon Williams
- College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Best S, Long J, Theodorou T, Hatem S, Lake R, Archibald A, Freeman L, Braithwaite J. Health practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to the implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: A systematic review. Prenat Diagn 2021; 41:708-719. [PMID: 33533079 PMCID: PMC8252081 DOI: 10.1002/pd.5914] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2020] [Revised: 12/22/2020] [Accepted: 01/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Background As interest in reproductive genetic carrier screening rises, with increased availability, the role of healthcare practitioners is central in guiding uptake aligned with a couples' values and beliefs. Therefore, practitioners' views on implementation are critical to the success of any reproductive genetic carrier screening programme. Aim To explore healthcare practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to implementation. Materials & Methods We undertook a systematic review of the literature searching seven databases using health practitioner, screening and implementation terms returning 490 articles. Results Screening led to the inclusion of 26 articles for full‐text review. We found three interconnected themes relating to reproductive genetic carrier screening: (i) use and impact, (ii) practitioners' beliefs and expectations and (iii) resources. Discussion Barriers and enablers to implementation were present within each theme and grouping these determinants by (a) community for example lack of public interest, (b) practitioner for example lack of practitioner time and (c) organisation for example lack of effective metrics, reveals a preponderance of practitioner barriers and organisational enablers. Linking barriers with potential enablers leaves several barriers unresolved (e.g., costs for couples) implying additional interventions may be required. Conclusion Future research should draw on the findings from this study to develop and test strategies to facilitate appropriate offering of reproductive genetic carrier screening by healthcare practitioners. What is already known?Availability of reproductive genetic carrier screening is rising. Screening is often focused on ethnically specific conditions or for those with a family history of disease. Commonly, carriers do not have family history of disease.
What does this review add?Identifies practitioner barriers to implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening, for example, beliefs and expectations. Matches identified practitioner barriers to enablers to implementation. Highlights where additional implementation support is required, for example, lack of practitioner confidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Janet Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Tahlia Theodorou
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sarah Hatem
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rebecca Lake
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Alison Archibald
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Bruce Lefroy Centre, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lucinda Freeman
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospital Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Best S, Ding S, Kersbergen A, Reljic B, Wright G, Rathi V, Desouza D, Mcconville M, Ritchie M, Sutherland K. P62.05 Identifying Therapeutic Approaches to Treat KEAP1-Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.01.979] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|