Search

Background: The use of an overall risk assessment based on genomic information is consistent with precision medicine. Despite the enthusiasm, there is a need for public engagement on the appropriate use of such emerging technologies in order to frame meaningful evaluations of utility, including the practical implementation and acceptability issues that might emerge. Doing so requires the involvement of the end users of these services, including patients, and sections of the public who are the target group for population based screening. In the present study we sought to explore public attitudes to the potential integration of personal genomic profiling within existing population screening programs; and to explore the evolution of these attitudes as part of a deliberative process. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study presented in the format of a deliberative workshop. Participants were drawn from communities in Ottawa, Ontario (ON) and St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Individuals were approached to take part in a workshop on the incorporation of genomic risk profiling for either colorectal cancer screening (CRC), or newborn screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Results: A total of N = 148 (N = 65 ON, N = 83 NL) participants provided data for analysis. Participants in both groups were supportive of public funding for genomic risk profiling, although participants in the T1DM groups expressed more guarded positive attitudes than participants in the CRC groups. These views were stable throughout the workshop (CRC, p = 0.15, T1DM, p =0.39). Participants were less positive about individual testing, with a significant decrease in support over the course of the workshop (CRC p = 0.02, T1DM, p = 0.003). Common concerns related to access to test results by third parties. Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that members of the target populations for potential genomic profiling tests (designed for screening or risk prediction purposes) can engage in meaningful deliberation about their general acceptability and personal utility. Evaluations of whether a test would be personally useful may depend on the experience of the participants in personal health decision making, the purpose of the test, and the availability of interventions to reduce disease risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Newborn screening (NBS) programs aim to identify affected infants before the onset of treatable disorders. Historically, benefits to the family and society were considered secondary to this clinical benefit; yet, recent discourse defending expanded NBS has argued that screening can in part be justified by secondary benefits, such as learning reproductive risk information to support family planning ('reproductive benefit'). Despite increased attention to these secondary benefits of NBS, stakeholders' values remain unknown. We report a mixed methods study that included an examination of providers' views toward the pursuit of reproductive risk information through NBS, using sickle cell disorder carrier status as an example. We surveyed a stratified random sample of 1615 providers in Ontario, and interviewed 42 providers across 7 disciplines. A majority endorsed the identification of reproductive risks as a goal of NBS (74-77%). Providers' dominant rationale was that knowledge of carrier status is an important and inherent benefit of NBS as it allows people to make reproductive choices, which is consistent with the goals of disease prevention. However, some challenged its appropriateness, questioning its logic, timing and impact on disease prevention. Others were sensitive to intruding on individuals' choices or children's independent rights. While the dominant view is consistent with discourse defending expanded NBS, it deviates from the traditional screening principles that underpin most public health interventions. Broader discussion of the balance between benefits to screened individuals and those to families and societies, in the context of public health programs, is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The expansion of newborn screening (NBS) is increasing the generation of incidental results, notably carrier results. Although carrier status is generally understood to be clinically benign, concerns persist that parents may misunderstand its meaning, with deleterious effects on children and their families. Expansion of the NBS panel in Ontario, Canada in 2006 to include sickle cell disorders drew attention to the policy challenge of incidental carrier results. We conducted a study of consumer and provider attitudes to inform policy on disclosure. In this paper, we report the results of (i) qualitative interviews with health-care providers, advocates and parents of carrier infants and (ii) focus groups with new parents and individuals active with the sickle cell community. Lay and provider participants generally believed that carrier results were clinically insignificant. However, some uncertainty persisted among lay consumers in the form of conjecture or doubt. In addition, consumers and advocates who were most informed about the disease articulated insistent yet dissonant claims of clinical significance. Meanwhile, providers referenced research knowledge to offer an equivocal assessment of the possibility and significance of clinically symptomatic carrier status. We conclude that many interpretations of carrier status are in circulation, failing to fit neatly into the categories of ‘clinically significant’ or ‘benign.’ This creates challenges for communicating clearly with parents – challenges exacerbated by inconsistent messages from screening programs regarding the significance of sickle cell carrier status. Disclosure policy related to incidentally generated infant carrier results needs to account for these complex realities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To develop and pilot study an information aid for women with a family history of breast cancer. Design, setting and participants The information aid, consisting of a booklet and audiotape, was developed by a multi-disciplinary team of health care professionals, breast cancer survivors and their relatives. Women with no personal history of breast cancer, on the waiting list for a familial breast cancer clinic at either of two centres, who could read English, were eligible for the pilot study which consisted of three sets of mailed questionnaires. Main outcome measures The baseline questionnaires included: demographic information: the Breast Cancer and Heredity Knowledge Scale (BCHK); psychological measures (the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory [STAI], Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D] and an item about breast cancer worry), and an item about breast cancer risk perception. Immediately after reviewing the information aid, participants completed a satisfaction survey, the risk perception and cancer worry items and a checklist about their personal family history. The third set of questionnaires, completed 2–4 weeks after reviewing the aid, was identical to the first. Patients then attended their scheduled clinic visit and an objective hereditary breast cancer risk assessment was made by the genetic counselling team. Results and conclusions Of 97 eligible women who were contacted, 67 completed all three sets of questionnaires. Overall, women were very satisfied with the aid and 96% would recommend it to other women. There was a highly significant improvement in their knowledge scores after they reviewed the aid. Anxiety and depression did not change and there was a decline in breast cancer worry. Risk perception did not change significantly. Ninety per cent of women completed their personal family history checklist accurately. Several important improvements have been made in the information aid and it will now be evaluated in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study by the North American Primary Care Research Group conducted on prenatal genetic screening. Focus of the investigators in the study; Number of women used in the study; Results of the study.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada.Methods: A clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing.Results: The tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making.Conclusion: The integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting.Trial Registration: The registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Genetic testing is used across medical disciplines leading to unprecedented demand for genetic services. This has resulted in excessive waitlists and unsustainable pressure on the standard model of genetic healthcare. Alternative models are needed; e-health tools represent scalable and evidence-based solution. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Navigator, an interactive patient-centred digital platform that supports the collection of medical and family history, provision of pregenetic and postgenetic counselling and return of genetic testing results across paediatric and adult settings., Methods and Analysis: We will evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Navigator combined with usual care by a genetics clinician (physician or counsellor) to usual care alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and thirty participants (adults patients or parents of paediatric patients) eligible for genetic testing through standard of care will be recruited across Ontario genetics clinics. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Navigator for pretest and post-test genetic counselling and results disclosure in conjunction with their clinician. Participants randomised into the control arm will receive usual care, that is, clinician-delivered pretest and post-test genetic counselling, and results disclosure. The primary outcome is participant distress 2 weeks after test results disclosure. Secondary outcomes include knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, empowerment, quality of life, satisfaction, acceptability, digital health literacy and health resource use. Quantitative data will be analysed using statistical hypothesis tests and regression models. A subset of participants will be interviewed to explore user experience; data will be analysed using interpretive description. A cost-effectiveness analysis will examine the incremental cost of the Navigator compared with usual care per unit reduction in distress or unit improvement in quality of life from public payer and societal perspectives., Ethics and Dissemination: This study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario. Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT06455384., Competing Interests: Competing interests: YB and MC are cofounders of Genetics Adviser., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Increasing demand for genomic testing coupled with genetics workforce shortages has placed unsustainable pressure on standard models of care. Digital tools can offer improved access, efficiency, and cost savings. We created a patient-facing digital health application to support genomic testing., Methods: We developed the digital application through user-centered design, guided by an advisory board. We tested its usability and acceptability with patients, practitioners, and members of the general public using mixed methods; data were analyzed using qualitative description and descriptive statistics., Results: The "Genetics Adviser" delivers pre-test education, counseling, and post-test return of results adaptable to any population, test platform, and setting. Usability testing with 25 patients, the general public, and genetics practitioners (15/25 female; mean age range 40-49 years) demonstrated enthusiasm about the application; users found it easy to navigate and comprehend. Acceptance testing with 19 patients and the public (13/19 female; mean age range 40-49 years) indicated high acceptability of the application and moderate knowledge of genomic sequencing after use., Conclusion: The Genetics Adviser is a comprehensive, interactive, patient-centered application found to have high acceptability and usability for pre- and post-test genomic testing, counseling, and return of results adaptable for multiple testing platforms, populations, and settings., Competing Interests: Yvonne Bombard and Marc Clausen are co–founders of Genetics Adviser. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Most secondary genomic findings (SFs) fall in the scope of primary care practice. However, primary care providers' (PCPs) capacity to manage these findings is not well understood. We explored PCPs' views and experiences of managing SFs through a qualitative study. PCPs participated in semi-structured interviews about SFs from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. The interpretive descriptive methodology was used to analyze transcripts thematically through constant comparison. Fifteen family physicians from Ontario, Canada participated (ten females; 6-40 years in practice across community and academic settings). PCPs made sense of SFs through the lens of actionability: they actively looked for clinical relevance by considering a wide range of immediate and future actions, including referrals, genetic testing, screening, lifestyle changes, counseling about family planning, informing family members, future medication choice, increased vigilance/surveillance, and managing results in the electronic medical record. PCPs saw clinical actionability as the main benefit mitigating the potential harms of learning SFs, namely patient anxiety and unnecessary investigations. PCPs conceptualized actionability more broadly than it is traditionally defined in medical genetics. Further research will be needed to determine if PCPs' emphasis on actionability conflicts with patients' expectations of SFs and if it leads to overutilization of healthcare resources., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Primary care providers will increasingly be tasked with managing most secondary findings from genomic sequencing, but literature exploring their capacity to manage findings beyond conventional genetic testing is limited. This study aimed to explore primary care providers' challenges and potential solutions for managing secondary findings. Providers were recruited in two groups. Group 1 providers had a patient in their practice who received secondary findings and all potential group 1 providers were invited to participate. Group 2 providers were provided with the secondary findings of a hypothetical patient and were purposefully sampled for maximal variation in sex, practice setting, and geographic location. Providers were interviewed about their challenges and solutions managing secondary findings from a patient in their practice or a hypothetical patient. Using interpretive description methodology, transcripts were analysed thematically complemented by constant comparison. Out of the fifty-five providers invited, 15 family physicians participated across community and academic settings in Ontario, Canada (range 6-40 years in practice; 10/15 female). Providers described a responsibility to manage secondary findings, but limited capacity for this, describing practice, knowledge, and technical challenges. Providers expressed concern that compared to other incidental findings, secondary genomic findings might be reported directly to patients and result in longer-term anxiety. Potential solutions were a structured letter with categorized results and summary tables highlighting key secondary findings with follow-up recommendations and resources, as well as electronic medical records (EMRs) that store and integrate genomic information for prescribing or referrals. These solutions were deemed essential to address knowledge and technical challenges faced by primary care physicians and ultimately promote clinical utility of secondary findings., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Our purpose was to explore genetics health professionals' (GHPs) expectations of primary care providers' (PCPs) role in genomic medicine now and in the future. Focus groups/interviews were conducted with GHPs in Ontario, Canada. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using qualitative descriptive analysis. Five focus groups (6 clinical geneticists, 24 genetic counselors, 1 nurse, 4 laboratory staff, 3 genetics program administrators) and 3 interviews (nurses) were conducted. GHPs described a key role for PCPs in genomic medicine that could be enhanced if GHPs and PCPs worked together more effectively, making better use of GHPs as a scarce specialist resource, improving PCP knowledge and awareness of genomics, and increasing GHPs' understanding of primary care practice and how to provide PCPs meaningful education and support. Health system change is needed to facilitate the GHP/PCP relationship and improve care. This might include: PCPs ordering more genetic tests independently or with GHP guidance prior to GHP consultations, genomic expertise in primary care clinics or GHPs being accessible through buddy systems or virtually through telemedicine or electronic consultation, and developing educational materials and electronic decision support for PCPs. Our findings highlight need for change in delivering genomic medicine, which requires building the relationship between GHPs and PCPs, and creating new service delivery models to meet future needs., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Widespread, quality genomics education for health professionals is required to create a competent genomic workforce. A lack of standards for reporting genomics education and evaluation limits the evidence base for replication and comparison. We therefore undertook a consensus process to develop a recommended minimum set of information to support consistent reporting of design, development, delivery, and evaluation of genomics education interventions., Methods: Draft standards were derived from literature (25 items from 21 publications). Thirty-six international experts were purposively recruited for three rounds of a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness, utility, and design., Results: The final standards include 18 items relating to development and delivery of genomics education interventions, 12 relating to evaluation, and 1 on stakeholder engagement., Conclusion: These Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics (RISE2 Genomics) are intended to be widely applicable across settings and health professions. Their use by those involved in reporting genomics education interventions and evaluation, as well as adoption by journals and policy makers as the expected standard, will support greater transparency, consistency, and comprehensiveness of reporting. Consequently, the genomics education evidence base will be more robust, enabling high-quality education and evaluation across diverse settings.

Purpose: Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling., Methods: We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis., Results: In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

Family history (FH) of a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with two to fourfold increased risk, yet screening uptake is suboptimal despite proven mortality reduction. We developed a FH-based CRC Risk Triage/Management tool for family physicians (FPs), and educational booklet for patients with CRC FH. This report describes physician referral and patient screening behavior 5 and 10 years post-educational intervention, and factors associated with screening. Longitudinal cohort study. FPs/patients in Ontario and Newfoundland, Canada were sent questionnaires at baseline (2005), 5 and 10 years (2015) following tool/booklet receipt. FPs were asked about CRC screening, patients about FH, screening type and timing. "Correct" screening was concordance with tool recommendations. Results reported for 29/121 (24%) FPs and 98/297 (33%) patients who completed all 3 questionnaires. Over 10 years 2/3 patients received the correct CRC screening test at appropriate timing (baseline 75%, 5-year 62%, 10-year 65%). About half reported their FP recommended CRC screening (5-year 51%, 10-year 63%). Fewer than half the patients correctly assessed their CRC risk (44%, 40%, 41%). Patients were less likely to have correct screening timing if female (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.61, 0.99; p = 0.045). Patients were less likely to have both correct test and timing if moderate/high CRC risk (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.47, 0.93; p = 0.017) and more likely if their physician recommended screening (RR1.69; 95% CI 1.15, 2.49; p = 0.007). Physician discussion of CRC risk and screening can positively impact patient screening behavior. Efforts are particularly needed for women and patients at moderate/high CRC risk., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone., Methods: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session., Results: Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.

Background: Evidence from observational studies of telomere length (TL) has been conflicting regarding its direction of association with cancer risk. We investigated the causal relevance of TL for lung and head and neck cancers using Mendelian Randomization (MR) and mediation analyses., Methods: We developed a novel genetic instrument for TL in chromosome 5p15.33, using variants identified through deep-sequencing, that were genotyped in 2051 cancer-free subjects. Next, we conducted an MR analysis of lung (16 396 cases, 13 013 controls) and head and neck cancer (4415 cases, 5013 controls) using eight genetic instruments for TL. Lastly, the 5p15.33 instrument and distinct 5p15.33 lung cancer risk loci were evaluated using two-sample mediation analysis, to quantify their direct and indirect, telomere-mediated, effects., Results: The multi-allelic 5p15.33 instrument explained 1.49-2.00% of TL variation in our data (p = 2.6 × 10-9). The MR analysis estimated that a 1000 base-pair increase in TL increases risk of lung cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-1.65] and lung adenocarcinoma (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.51-2.22), but not squamous lung carcinoma (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.83-1.29) or head and neck cancers (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.70-1.05). Mediation analysis of the 5p15.33 instrument indicated an absence of direct effects on lung cancer risk (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.95-1.04). Analysis of distinct 5p15.33 susceptibility variants estimated that TL mediates up to 40% of the observed associations with lung cancer risk., Conclusions: Our findings support a causal role for long telomeres in lung cancer aetiology, particularly for adenocarcinoma, and demonstrate that telomere maintenance partially mediates the lung cancer susceptibility conferred by 5p15.33 loci., (© The Author(s) 2018; all rights reserved. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

Objective: To assess the proportion of primary care patients who report a family history (FH) of type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, breast cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC); assess concordance of FH information derived from the electronic medical record (EMR) compared with patient-completed health questionnaires; and assess whether appropriate screening was informed by risk based solely on FH., Design: Data from the BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) trial were used. Patients were mailed questionnaires. Baseline FH and screening data were obtained for enrolled patients from the EMR and health questionnaires., Setting: Ontario and Alberta., Participants: Randomly selected patients from 8 family practices., Main Outcome Measures: Agreement on FH between the EMR and questionnaire was determined; logistic regression was used to assess significant predictors of screening., Results: In total, 775 of 789 (98%) patients completed the health questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 52.5 years and 72% were female. A minimum of 12% of patients (range 12% to 36%) had a reported FH of 1 of 4 chronic diseases. Among patients with positive FH, the following proportions of patients had that FH recorded in the EMR compared with the questionnaire: diabetes, 24% in the EMR versus 36% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.466; coronary artery disease, 35% in the EMR versus 22% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.225; breast cancer, 21% in the EMR versus 22% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.241; and CRC, 12% in the EMR versus 14% on the questionnaire, κ = 0.510. There was moderate agreement for diabetes and CRC. The presence of FH was a significant predictor of CRC screening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.1)., Conclusion: A moderate prevalence of FH was found for 4 conditions for which screening recommendations vary with risk based on FH. Having patients self-complete an FH was thought to be feasible; however, questions about FH accuracy and completeness from both self-report and EMR remain. Work is needed to determine how to facilitate the adoption of FH tools into practice as well as strategies linking familial risk to appropriate screening.Trial registration number ISRCTN07170460 (ISRCTN Registry)., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To explore health care provider (HCP) perspectives on the coordination of cancer care between FPs and cancer specialists., Design: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews., Setting: Canada., Participants: A total of 58 HCPs, comprising 21 FPs, 15 surgeons, 12 medical oncologists, 6 radiation oncologists, and 4 GPs in oncology., Methods: This qualitative study is nested within a larger mixed-methods program of research, CanIMPACT (Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum), focused on improving the coordination of cancer care between FPs and cancer specialists. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, telephone interviews were conducted with HCPs involved in cancer care. Invitations to participate were sent to a purposive sample of HCPs based on medical specialty, sex, province or territory, and geographic location (urban or rural). A coding schema was developed by 4 team members; subsequently, 1 team member coded the remaining transcripts. The resulting themes were reviewed by the entire team and a summary of results was mailed to participants for review., Main Findings: Communication challenges emerged as the most prominent theme. Five key related subthemes were identified around this core concept that occurred at both system and individual levels. System-level issues included delays in medical transcription, difficulties accessing patient information, and physicians not being copied on all reports. Individual-level issues included the lack of rapport between FPs and cancer specialists, and the lack of clearly defined and broadly communicated roles., Conclusion: Effective and timely communication of medical information, as well as clearly defined roles for each provider, are essential to good coordination of care along the cancer care trajectory, particularly during transitions of care between cancer specialist and FP care. Despite advances in technology, substantial communication challenges still exist. This can lead to serious consequences that affect clinical decision making., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To summarize the best evidence on strategies to identify and manage women with a family history of breast cancer., Sources of Information: A PubMed search was conducted using the search terms breast cancer, guidelines, risk, family history, management, and magnetic resonance imaging screening from 2000 to 2016. Most evidence is level II., Main Message: Taking a good family history is essential when assessing breast cancer risk in order to identify women suitable for referral to a genetic counselor for possible genetic testing. Offering risk-reducing surgery (bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) to women with BRCA genetic mutations can save lives. All women with a family history of breast cancer should be encouraged to stay active and limit alcohol intake to less than 1 drink per day; some will qualify for chemoprevention. Women with a 20% to 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer should be offered enhanced screening with annual magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography., Conclusion: Healthy living and chemoprevention (for suitable women) could reduce breast cancer incidence; enhanced screening could result in earlier detection. Referring women who carry BRCA mutations for risk-reducing surgery will save lives., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To assess primary care providers' (PCPs') experiences with, perceptions of, and desired role in personalized medicine, with a focus on cancer., Design: Qualitative study involving focus groups., Setting: Urban and rural interprofessional primary care team practices in Alberta and Ontario., Participants: Fifty-one PCPs., Methods: Semistructured focus groups were conducted and audiorecorded. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using techniques informed by grounded theory including coding, interpretations of patterns in the data, and constant comparison., Main Findings: Five focus groups with the 51 participants were conducted; 2 took place in Alberta and 3 in Ontario. Primary care providers described limited experience with personalized medicine, citing breast cancer and prenatal care as main areas of involvement. They expressed concern over their lack of knowledge, in some circumstances relying on personal experiences to inform their attitudes and practice. Participants anticipated an inevitable role in personalized medicine primarily because patients seek and trust their advice; however, there was underlying concern about the magnitude of information and pace of discovery in this area, particularly in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Increased knowledge, closer ties to genetics specialists, and relevant, reliable personalized medicine resources accessible at the point of care were reported as important for successful implementation of personalized medicine., Conclusion: Primary care providers are prepared to discuss personalized medicine, but they require better resources. Models of care that support a more meaningful relationship between PCPs and genetics specialists should be pursued. Continuing education strategies need to address knowledge gaps including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, a relatively new area provoking PCP concern. Primary care providers should be mindful of using personal experiences to guide care., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To explore patient perspectives on and experiences with the coordination and continuity of cancer care., Design: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews., Setting: Canada., Participants: Thirty-eight breast and colorectal cancer survivors 1 to 4 years after diagnosis., Methods: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with the participants. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and proofread. Transcripts were reviewed to create a focused coding scheme that was used to develop categories for participants' experiences., Main Findings: Although this study focused on the continuity of cancer care, patients described their experiences with cancer care in general, concentrating predominantly on their relationships with individual health care providers (HCPs). Based on patients' experiences, several themes were identified as the core components of providing good continuity and well coordinated care. The most important overarching theme was communication, which overlapped with 4 other themes: patient-HCP relationships, the role of HCPs, lack of access to care, and timely and tailored information., Conclusion: Patients believed that good communication between HCPs and patients was key to improving the overall continuity of cancer care. Continuity of care is an important theoretical concept in cancer care, but it is not easily recognized by patients. They perceive the cancer care continuum and continuity of care as cancer care in general, which is typically framed by the individual relationships with their HCPs. Future research and interventions need to focus on finding and testing ways to improve communication to enhance continuity of cancer care., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: This guideline was written to update Canadian maternity care and reproductive healthcare providers on pre- and postconceptional reproductive carrier screening for women or couples who may be at risk of being carriers for autosomal recessive (AR), autosomal dominant (AD), or X-linked (XL) conditions, with risk of transmission to the fetus. Four previous SOGC- Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) guidelines are updated and merged into the current document., Intended Users: All maternity care (most responsible health provider [MRHP]) and paediatric providers; maternity nursing; nurse practitioner; provincial maternity care administrator; medical student; and postgraduate resident year 1-7., Target Population: Fertile, sexually active females and their fertile, sexually active male partners who are either planning a pregnancy or are pregnant (preferably in the first trimester of pregnancy, but any gestational age is acceptable)., Options: Women and their partners will be able to obtain appropriate genetic carrier screening information and possible diagnosis of AR, AD, or XL disorders (preferably pre-conception), thereby allowing an informed choice regarding genetic carrier screening and reproductive options (e.g., prenatal diagnosis, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, egg or sperm donation, or adoption)., Outcomes: Informed reproductive decisions related to genetic carrier screening and reproductive outcomes based on family history, ethnic background, past obstetrical history, known carrier status, or genetic diagnosis. SOGC REPRODUCTIVE CARRIER SCREENING SUMMARY STATEMENT (2016): Pre-conception or prenatal education and counselling for reproductive carrier screening requires a discussion about testing within the three perinatal genetic carrier screening/diagnosis time periods, which include pre-conception, prenatal, and neonatal for conditions currently being screened for and diagnosed. This new information should be added to the standard reproductive carrier screening protocols that are already being utilized by the most responsible maternity provider through the informed consent process with the patient. (III-A; GRADE low/moderate) SOGC OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS QUALITY AND GRADE: There was a strong observational/expert opinion (quality and grade) for the genetic carrier literature with randomized controlled trial evidence being available only for the invasive testing. Both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care quality and classification and the GRADE evidence quality and grade are provided., Evidence: MEDLINE; PubMed; government neonatal screening websites; key words/common reproductive genetic carrier screened diseases/previous SOGC Guidelines/medical academic societies (Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine [SMFM]; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG]; CCMG; Royal College Obstetrics and Gynaecology [RCOG] [UK]; American Society of Human Genetics [ASHG]; International Society of Prenatal Diagnosis [ISPD])/provincial neonatal screening policies and programs; search terms (carrier screening, prenatal screening, neonatal genetic/metabolic screening, cystic fibrosis (CF), thalassemia, hemoglobinopathy, hemophilia, Fragile X syndrome (FXS), spinal muscular atrophy, Ashkenazi Jewish carrier screening, genetic carrier screening protocols, AR, AD, XL)., Search Period: 10 years (June 2005-September 2015); initial search dates June 30, 2015 and September 15, 2015; completed final search January 4, 2016. Validation of articles was completed by primary authors RD Wilson and I De Bie., Benefits, Harms, and Cost: Benefits are to provide an evidenced based reproductive genetic carrier screening update consensus based on international opinions and publications for the use of Canadian women, who are planning a pregnancy or who are pregnant and have been identified to be at risk (personal or male partner family or reproductive history) for the transmission of a clinically significant genetic condition to their offspring with associated morbidity and/or mortality. Harm may arise from having counselling and informed testing of the carrier status of the mother, their partner, or their fetus, as well as from declining to have this counselling and informed testing or from not having the opportunity for counselling and informed testing. Costs will ensue both from the provision of opportunities for counselling and testing, as well as when no such opportunities are offered or are declined and the birth of a child with a significant inherited condition and resulting morbidity/mortality occurs; these comprise not only the health care costs to the system but also the social/financial/psychological/emotional costs to the family. These recommendations are based on expert opinion and have not been subjected to a health economics assessment and local or provincial implementation will be required., Guideline Update: This guideline is an update of four previous joint SOGC-CCMG Genetic Screening Guidelines dated 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2008 developed by the SOGC Genetic Committee in collaboration with the CCMG Prenatal Diagnosis Committee (now Clinical Practice Committee). 2016 CARRIER SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS., (Copyright © 2016 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore patients' perceptions of primary care (PC) in the early development of academic family health teams (aFHTs)--interprofessional PC teams delivering care where family medicine and other health professional learners are trained--focusing on the 4 core domains of PC., Design: Self-administered survey using the Primary Care Assessment Tool Adult Expanded Version (PCAT), which addresses 4 core domains of PC (first contact, continuity, comprehensiveness, and coordination). The PCAT uses a 4-point Likert scale (from definitely not to definitely) to capture patients' responses about the occurrence of components of care., Setting: Six aFHTs in Ontario., Participants: Adult patients attending appointments and administrators at each of the aFHTs., Main Outcome Measures: Mean PCAT domain scores, with a score of 3 chosen as the minimum expected level of care. Multivariate log binomial regression models were used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of PCAT score levels as functions of patient- and clinic-level characteristics., Results: The response rate was 47.3% (1026 of 2167). The mean age of respondents was 49.6 years, and most respondents were female (71.6%). The overall PC score (2.92) was just below the minimum expected care level. Scores for first contact (2.28 [accessibility]), coordination of information systems (2.67), and comprehensiveness of care (2.83 [service available] and 2.36 [service provided]) were below the minimum. Findings suggest some patient groups might not be optimally served by aFHTs, particularly recent immigrants. Characteristics of aFHTs, including a large number of physicians, were not associated with high performance on PC domains. Distributed practices across multiple sites were negatively associated with high performance for some domains. The presence of electronic medical records was not associated with improved performance on coordination of information systems., Conclusion: Patients of these aFHTs rated several core domains of PC highly, but results indicate room for improvement in several domains, particularly first-contact accessibility. A future study will determine what changes were implemented in these aFHTs and if patient ratings have improved. This reflective process is essential to ensuring that aFHTs provide effective models of PC to learners of all disciplines.

Objective: To explore patients' perceptions of primary care (PC) in the early development of academic family health teams (aFHTs)--interprofessional PC teams delivering care where family medicine and other health professional learners are trained--focusing on patients' perceptions of access and patients' satisfaction with services., Design: Self-administered survey., Setting: Six aFHTs in Ontario., Participants: Adult patients attending appointments and administrators at each of the aFHTs., Main Outcome Measures: Answers to questions about access from the Primary Care Assessment Tool Adult Expanded Version, the Primary Care Assessment Survey, and research team questions., Results: The response rate was 47.3% (1026 of 2167). The mean (SD) Primary Care Assessment Tool first-contact accessibility score was 2.28 (0.36) out of 4, with 96.5% of patients rating access less than 3, which was the minimum expected level of care. Two-thirds (66.6%) indicated someone from their aFHTs would definitely or probably see them the same day if they were sick, 56.8% could definitely or probably get advice quickly by telephone, and 14.5% indicated it was definitely or probably difficult to be seen by their primary health care provider (HCP). Additionally, 46.9% indicated they would like to get medical advice by e-mail. For a routine or follow-up visit, 73.4% would be willing to see another aFHT physician if their regular provider were unavailable, while only 48.3% would see a nonphysician HCP. If sick, 88.2% would see another aFHT physician and 55.2% would see a nonphysician HCP. Most (75.3%) were satisfied with access to their regular HCP., Conclusion: Although patients are generally satisfied with care, there is room for improvement in access. Strategies are needed to enhance access to care, including addressing appropriate roles and scopes of practice for nonphysician HCPs. The accessibility challenges for aFHTs will likely affect new family physicians and other HCPs training in these practices and their approach to future practice.

Background: The aim of the Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) randomized controlled trial is to improve the primary prevention of and screening for multiple conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer) and some of the associated lifestyle factors (tobacco use, alcohol overuse, poor nutrition, physical inactivity). In this article, we describe how we harmonized the evidence-based clinical practice guideline recommendations and patient tools to determine the content for the BETTER trial., Methods: We identified clinical practice guidelines and tools through a structured literature search; we included both indexed and grey literature. From these guidelines, recommendations were extracted and integrated into knowledge products and outcome measures for use in the BETTER trial. End-users (family physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses and dieticians) were engaged in reviewing the recommendations and tools, as well as tailoring the content to the needs of the BETTER trial and family practice., Results: In total, 3-5 high-quality guidelines were identified for each condition; from these, we identified high-grade recommendations for the prevention of and screening for chronic disease. The guideline recommendations were limited by conflicting recommendations, vague wording and different taxonomies for strength of recommendation. There was a lack of quality evidence for manoeuvres to improve the uptake of guidelines among patients with depression. We developed the BETTER clinical algorithms for the implementation plan. Although it was difficult to identify high-quality tools, 180 tools of interest were identified., Interpretation: The intervention for the BETTER trial was built by integrating existing guidelines and tools, and working with end-users throughout the process to increase the intervention's utility for practice., Trial Registration: ISRCTN07170460.

Objective: To examine the role of primary care providers in informing and supporting families who receive positive screening results., Design: Cross-sectional survey., Setting: Ontario., Participants: Family physicians, pediatricians, and midwives involved in newborn care., Main Outcome Measures: Beliefs, practices, and barriers related to providing information to families who receive positive screening results for their newborns., Results: A total of 819 providers participated (adjusted response rate of 60.9%). Of the respondents, 67.4% to 81.0% agreed that it was their responsibility to provide care to families of newborns who received positive screening results, and 64.2% to 84.8% agreed they should provide brochures or engage in general discussions about the identified conditions. Of the pediatricians, 67.3% endorsed having detailed discussions with families, but only 24.1% of family physicians and 27.6% of midwives endorsed this practice. All provider groups reported less involvement in information provision than they believed they should have. This discrepancy was most evident for family physicians: most stated that they should provide brochures (64.2%) or engage in general discussions (73.5%), but only a minority did so (15.3% and 27.7%, respectively). Family physicians reported insufficient time (42.2%), compensation (52.2%), and training (72.3%) to play this role, and only a minority agreed they were up to date (18.5%) or confident (16.5%) regarding newborn screening., Conclusion: Providers of primary newborn care see an information-provision role for themselves in caring for families who receive positive newborn screening results. Efforts to further define the scope of this role combined with efforts to mitigate existing barriers are warranted.

Objective: To explore views of women and health care providers (HCPs) about the changing recommendations regarding maternal age-based prenatal screening., Design: Mixed-methods design., Setting: Ontario., Participants: A sample of women who had given birth within the previous 2 years and who had attended a family medicine centre, midwifery practice, or baby and mother wellness program (n = 42); and a random sample of family physicians (n = 1600), and all Ontario obstetricians (n = 694) and midwives (n = 334) who provided prenatal care., Methods: We used focus groups (FGs) to explore women's views. Content analysis was used to uncover themes and delineate meaning. To explore HCPs' views, we conducted a cross-sectional self-completion survey., Main Findings: All FG participants (42 women in 6 FGs) expressed the importance of individual choice of prenatal screening modality, regardless of age. They described their perception that society considers women older than 35 to be at high obstetric risk and raised concerns that change in the maternal age-related screening policy would require education. The HCP survey response rate was 40%. Results showed 24% of HCPs agreed that women of any age should be eligible for invasive diagnostic testing regardless of prenatal screening results; 15% agreed that the age for diagnostic testing should be increased to 40 years, 14% agreed that diagnostic testing should be reserved for women with positive prenatal screening results, and 45% agreed that prenatal screening should remain unchanged., Conclusion: Maternity care organizations have recommended that maternal age-based prenatal screening is no longer appropriate. Informed choice is of paramount importance to women and should be part of any change. Health care providers need to be engaged in and educated about any change to screening guidelines to offer women informed choices.