Search

This Position Statement provides guidelines to assist all health professionals who receive requests for carrier testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests. In this Statement, the term ‘carrier testing’ refers to genetic testing in an individual to determine whether they have inherited a pathogenic variant associated with an autosomal or X-linked recessive condition previously identified in a blood relative. Carrier testing recommendations: (1) Carrier testing should only be performed with the individual’s knowledge and consent; (2) An individual considering (for themselves, or on behalf of another) whether to have a carrier test should be supported to make an informed decision; (3) The mode of inheritance, the individual’s personal experience with the condition, and the healthcare setting in which the test is being performed should be considered when determining whether carrier testing should be offered by a genetic health professional. Regarding children and young people: Unless there is direct medical benefit in the immediate future, the default position should be to postpone carrier testing until the child or young person can be supported to make an informed decision. There may be some specific situations where it is appropriate to facilitate carrier testing in children and young people (see section in this article). In such cases, testing should only be offered with pre- and post-test genetic counseling in which genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should explore the rationale for testing and the interests of the child and the family.

Technology that delivers an immersive experience in education offers a viable alternative to in-person teaching. This study aims to compare learning from a clinical encounter viewed in a virtual reality 360-degree headset to that of a traditional monitor by quantifying the user experience and testing what was learnt. Furthermore, experiential learning is described as a key concept in simulation practice, and this is explored using transcripts of participants' experiences with 360-degree video. We could determine no statistical difference between median exam scores between groups (

Precision medicine programs aim to utilize novel technologies to identify personalized treatments for children with cancer. Delivering these programs requires interdisciplinary efforts, yet the many groups involved are understudied. This study explored the experiences of a broad range of professionals delivering Australia’s first precision medicine trial for children with poor-prognosis cancer: the PRecISion Medicine for Children with Cancer (PRISM) national clinical trial of the Zero Childhood Cancer Program. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 85 PRISM professionals from eight professional groups, including oncologists, surgeons, clinical research associates, scientists, genetic professionals, pathologists, animal care technicians, and nurses. We analyzed interviews thematically. Professionals shared that precision medicine can add complexity to their role and result in less certain outcomes for families. Although many participants described experiencing a greater emotional impact from their work, most expressed very positive views about the impact of precision medicine on their profession and its future potential. Most reported navigating precision medicine without formal training. Each group described unique challenges involved in adapting to precision medicine in their profession. Addressing training gaps and meeting the specific needs of many professional groups involved in precision medicine will be essential to ensure the successful implementation of standard care.

Australian life insurance companies can legally use genetic test results in underwriting, which can lead to genetic discrimination. In 2019, the Financial Services Council (Australian life insurance industry governing body) introduced a partial moratorium restricting the use of genetic testing in underwriting policies ≤ $500,000 (active 2019–2024). Health professionals (HPs), especially clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, often discuss the implications of genetic testing with patients, and provide critical insights into the effectiveness of the moratorium. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, we interviewed 23 Australian HPs, who regularly discuss genetic testing with patients and had previously completed an online survey about genetic testing and life insurance. Interviews explored views and experiences about the moratorium, and regulation, in greater depth. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Two key themes emerged from views expressed by HPs during interviews (about matters reported to or observed by them): 1) benefits of the moratorium, and 2) concerns about the moratorium. While HPs reported that the moratorium reassures some consumers, concerns include industry self-regulation, uncertainty created by the temporary time period, and the inadequacy of the moratorium’s financial limits for patients’ financial needs. Although a minority of HPs felt the current industry self-regulated moratorium is an adequate solution to genetic discrimination, the vast majority (19/23) expressed concern with industry self-regulation and most felt government regulation is required to adequately protect consumers. HPs in Australia are concerned about the adequacy of the FSC moratorium with regards to consumer protections, and suggest government regulation is required.

BackgroundAshkenazi Jewish (AJ) people have a higher incidence ofBRCA1/2pathogenic variants (PVs) than unselected populations. ThreeBRCA-Jewish founder mutations (B-JFMs) comprise >90% ofBRCA1/2PVs in AJ people. Personal/family cancer history-based testing misses ≥50% of people with B-JFM.MethodsWe compared two population-based B-JFM screening programmes in Australia—using (1) an online tool (Sydney) and (2) in-person group sessions (Melbourne).ResultsOf 2167 Jewish people tested (Sydney n=594; Melbourne n=1573), 1.3% (n=28) have a B-JFM, only 2 of whom had a significant cancer family history (Manchester score ≥12). Pretest anxiety scores were normal (mean 9.9±3.5 (6–24)), with no significant post-result change (9.5±3.3). Decisional regret (mean 7.4±13.0 (0–100)), test-related distress (mean 0.8+/2.2 (0–30)) and positive experiences (reverse-scored) (mean 3.4±4.5 (1–20)) scores were low, with no significant differences between Sydney and Melbourne participants. Post-education knowledge was good overall (mean 11.8/15 (±2.9)) and significantly higher in Melbourne than Sydney. Post-result knowledge was the same (mean 11.7 (±2.4) vs 11.2 (±2.4)). Participants with a B-JFM had higher post-result anxiety and test-related distress and lower positive experiences, than those without a B-JFM, but scores were within the normal range. Family cancer history did not significantly affect knowledge or anxiety, or pretest perception of B-JFM or cancer risks. Most participants (93%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the programme.ConclusionBoth B-JFM screening programmes are highly acceptable to Australian Jewish communities. The programme enabled identification of several individuals who were previously unaware they have a B-JFM, many of whom would have been ineligible for current criteria-based testing in Australia.

Genetic counseling and diagnostic genetic testing is part of the multidisciplinary care of people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, commonly called motor neurone disease, MND) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). We explored client experiences of genetic counseling and diagnostic testing to inform the care of future families. Semi-structured interviews with individuals with ALS/MND/FTD or their relatives were conducted. The study was designed to include a wide variety of participants with varying disease status and abilities. Genetic counseling and diagnostic testing experiences were explored using interpretive description methodology. Bioecological theory was used as the framework for the reflexive thematic analysis. Eighteen individuals with ALS/MND/FTD or their relatives from 13 Australian families participated. Three themes were identified: sharing knowledge, (un)supportive care, and 'circumstance is everything'. Consistent with bioecological theory, one's genetic counseling experience was informed by individual circumstances, time, and proximal factors. These informed the level of information and support required in the genetic counseling process. Although some client circumstances cannot be changed, efforts could be made to enhance genetic counseling experiences by improving interactions between the client and their care team. Some clients may benefit from further discussions regarding the familial implications of genetic testing, and greater support with family communication. Clients' needs were derived from the data and will contribute to genetic counseling consensus guidelines.

There is currently no consensus on the key outcomes of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). This has led to a large amount of variability in approaches to research, limiting direct comparison and synthesis of findings. In a recently published systematic review of quantitative studies on RGCS, we found that few studies incorporated patient-reported outcomes. In response to this gap, we conducted a sequential systematic review of qualitative studies to identify outcomes exploring the patient experience of RGCS. In conjunction with the review of quantitative studies, these outcomes will be used to inform the development of a core outcome set. Text excerpts relevant to outcomes, including quotes and themes, were extracted verbatim and deductively coded as outcomes. We conducted a narrative synthesis to group outcomes within domains previously defined in our review of quantitative studies, and identify any new domains that were unique to qualitative studies. Seventy-eight outcomes were derived from qualitative studies and grouped into 19 outcome domains. Three new outcome domains were identified; ‘goals of pre- and post-test genetic counselling’, ‘acceptability of further testing and alternative reproductive options’, and ‘perceived utility of RGCS’. The identification of outcome domains that were not identified in quantitative studies indicates that outcomes reflecting the patient perspective may be under-represented in the quantitative literature on this topic. Further work should focus on ensuring that outcomes reflect the real world needs and concerns of patients in order to maximise translation of research findings into clinical practice.

Genetic and genomic data are increasingly guiding clinical care for cancer patients. To meet the growing demand for precision medicine, patient-facing oncology staff will be a part of leading the provision of genomic testing. A scoping review was undertaken to identify the range of genetic and genomic learning needs of oncologists and oncology nurses. Learning needs were reported relating to interpretation of genomic data, clinical decision-making, patient communication and counseling, and fundamentals of genetics and genomics. There was a lack of empirical research specific to oncology nurses and their learning needs in tumor sequencing. Our findings suggest that oncologists and oncology nurses need tailored support, education and training to improve their confidence and skills in adopting genomic testing into clinical practice.

PDF file - 90K

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA).Methods: Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined.Results: We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.27; P = 7.42 × 10−4] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05–1.29; P = 3.8 × 10−4) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10–1.52; P = 1.8 × 10−3).Conclusions: 19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.Impact: These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(4); 645–57. ©2012 AACR.

Purpose: Current practice recommendations support the widespread implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). These consensus-based recommendations highlight a research gap, with findings from current studies being insufficient to meet the standard required for more rigorous evidence-based recommendations. This systematic review assessed methodological aspects of studies on RGCS to inform the need for a core outcome set. Methods: We conducted a systematic search to identify peer-reviewed published studies offering population-based RGCS. Study designs, outcomes, and measurement methods were extracted. A narrative synthesis was conducting using an existing outcome taxonomy and criteria used in the evaluation of genetic screening programs as frameworks. Results: Sixty-five publications were included. We extracted 120 outcomes representing 24 outcome domains. Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement methods and time points of assessment was extensive. Quality appraisal raised concerns for bias. We found that reported outcomes had limited applicability to criteria used to evaluate genetic screening programs. Conclusions: Despite a large body of literature, diverse approaches to research have limited the conclusions that can be cumulatively drawn from this body of evidence. Consensus regarding meaningful outcomes for evaluation of RGCS would be valuable first step in working towards evidence-based practice recommendations, supporting the development of a core outcome set. Funding: This study is supported by the University of Technology Sydney and Graduate School of Health in the form of the Australian Research Training Program Fee Waiver Scholarship and Research Excellence Scholarship. Declaration of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Genetic testing does not always change health behavior. Effective behavior change requires a theory-driven coordinated set of activities (behavior change techniques). Genetic counselors are ideally positioned to facilitate behavior change. We aimed to explore genetic counselors’ perceptions of their role in supporting clients’ behavior change to inform the design of an intervention. Recruitment was via a professional organization and genetics services. Data were collected from 26 genetic counselors via qualitative focus groups/interview. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and mapped to the COM-B model. We identified three behaviors genetic counselors wanted clients to change: attend appointments, access information, and share information with family members. Strategies for changing clients’ behavior included: assessing needs and capabilities, providing information and support, enabling and monitoring behavior change. Barriers included lack of behavior change skills and knowledge, lack of time, and beliefs about ownership of healthcare, directiveness of behavior change, and scope of practice. Equipping genetic counselors to deliver behavior change requires (i) education in behavior change theory and behavior change techniques, (ii) integration of capability, opportunity and motivation assessment into existing practice, and (iii) development of evidence-based strategies using behavior change tools to focus discussions and promote clients’ agency to change their behavior.

Understanding the benefits of health interventions is needed to inform best practice and ensure responsible implementation of new approaches to patient care. The assessment of outcomes is an important part of demonstrating these benefits. There is no current consensus about which outcomes are appropriate for the evaluation of genetic health interventions, including genetic testing and genetic counselling. The Core Outcome DEvelopment for Carrier Screening study has addressed this lack of guidance by undertaking a systematic approach to understanding the outcomes that can meaningfully capture the benefits of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Herein, we report on a consensus process to determine the degree of consensus among Australian and New Zealand stakeholders regarding the core outcomes of RGCS. An iterative, two-round online Delphi survey was conducted. Panellists ranked 83 outcomes according to their perceived importance on a nine-point Likert scale. Using the distribution of rankings, outcomes were grouped into tiers representative of their perceived level of importance and agreement between groups. The top tier outcomes were agreed to be critically important for all future studies and were used to define a preliminary core outcome set encompassing the domains (1) primary laboratory outcomes, (2) pregnancy outcomes, (3) resource use and (4) perceived utility of RGCS. These findings will help to guide the selection of meaningful outcomes in studies aiming to evaluate the value of RGCS. A future international consensus process will expand on these findings and guide the inclusion of diverse perspectives across the range of settings in which RGCS is offered.

Background Completion of the Foundation Year One (FY1) doctor training is a requirement for full General Medical Council registration in the United Kingdom. Training during this year is mapped to a curriculum with one of the key elements being safe procedural skills. The objective of this project was to improve the teaching of procedural skills through the means of a Clinical Skills Day (CSD) and to quantify any improvement. Materials and methods A one-group pretest-posttest design was conducted on 32 doctors who completed a confidence inventory before and after four core procedural stations: suturing, urethral catheterisation (both male and female), lumbar puncture, and bimanual and speculum examinations. The intervention of simulated procedural skills occurred under the supervision of senior clinicians, with FY1 doctors receiving teaching and practising the four skills. The primary outcome was the impact of a CSD on trainees' confidence in performing certain skills. Pre- and post-CSD trainees' confidence levels were collected via an online-focused questionnaire and descriptive statistics, paired t-test, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Bonferroni comparisons were undertaken for statistical analysis. Results The difference in the mean scores of confidence post-intervention was significant in all four procedural stations with or without supervision (p0.0001). Conclusions The use of CSDs impacted positively on the FY1 doctors' confidence in performing certain skills. Wider implementation of this promising approach for Foundation Doctors is recommended.

BACKGROUND: Genomics has growing relevance to palliative care, where testing largely benefits relatives. Integration of genomics into the care of patients with palliative care needs has not received the critical attention it requires, and health professionals report a lack of policy guidance to support them to overcome practice barriers. SUMMARY: To identify policy recommendations related to: (1) integrating genomics into the care of patients with palliative care needs and their families, and (2) care of the family unit, we performed a scoping review of palliative care and genomic policies. Two of 78 policies recommended integrating genomics into palliative care. Six palliative care policies mentioned genomics in background information but were without relevant recommendations. No genomics policies mentioned palliative care in the background information. Across all policies, guidance related to “Delivering Family-Centred Care” was the most frequent recommendation related to care of the family unit, (n=62/78, 79.5%). KEY MESSAGES: We identified a policy gap related to integrating genomics into palliative care. Without policy guidance, health services are less likely to commit funding towards supporting health professionals, reducing the personal and clinical benefits of genomics to patients and relatives. Framing genomic information as family-centred care enables policy makers to communicate the value of genomics to palliative care that will resonate with genomic and palliative care stakeholders. These findings increase awareness among policy makers of the benefits of genomic information to patients with palliative care needs and their families and call for incorporation of appropriate recommendations into palliative care and genomic policy.

BackgroundImmersive technology is becoming more widespread in simulation-based medical education with applications that both supplement and replace traditional teaching methods. There is a lack of validated measures that capture user experience to inform of the technology utility. We aimed to establish a consensus of items and domains that different simulation experts would include in a measure for immersive technology use.MethodsA 3-stage modified Delphi using online software was conducted to support the conceptual framework for the proposed measure. The first round was informed by prior work on immersive technology in simulation. In the first round, participants were asked to describe what we could measure in simulation-based education and technology. Thematic analysis generated key themes that were presented to the participants in the second round. Ranking of importance in round 2 was determined by mean rank scores. The final round was an online meeting for final consensus discussion and most important domains by experts were considered.ResultsA total of 16 simulation experts participated in the study. A consensus was reached on the ideal measure in immersive technology simulation that would be a user questionnaire and domains of interest would be: what was learnt, the degree of immersion experienced, fidelity provided, debrief, psychological safety and patient safety. No consensus was reached with the barriers that this technology introduces in education.ConclusionsThere is varied opinion on what we should prioritise in measuring the experience in simulation practice. Importantly, this study identified key areas that aids our understanding on how we can measure new technology in educational settings. Synthesising these results in to a multidomain instrument requires a systematic approach to testing in future research

Genetic information can provide clinical benefits to families of palliative patients. However, integration of genetics into mainstream medicine has not focused on palliative populations. We explored the views and experiences of genetic health professionals in addressing genetics with palliative patients, and their families. We conducted an interpretive descriptive qualitative study with genetic counsellors and clinical geneticists using interviews and focus groups. Findings were generated using reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes were identified: (1) Focusing on the benefit to the family, (2) The discomfort of addressing genetics near end-of-life and (3) “It’s always on the back-burner”: Challenges to getting genetics on the palliative care agenda. Participants discussed the familial benefit of genetics in palliative care alongside the challenges when patients are near end-of-life. They perceived genetics as low priority for palliative care due to misunderstandings related to the value of genetic information. Acknowledging the challenges in the palliative care context, genetic health professionals want improved service leadership and awareness of the familial benefits of palliative genetic testing. Strong leadership to support genetic health professionals in addressing these barriers is needed for the benefits of genetic information to be realised.

Travel restrictions, physical distancing, and limits to clinical placements due to the global pandemic raised enormous challenges for genetic counseling education in 2020. In response, we created authentic virtual clinical experiences in our Master of Genetic Counseling program, mimicking clinical practice: virtual simulation with standardized clients, and virtual clinical placements, including intake calls, triage, consultations, teamwork and time management, and genetic counseling with standardized clients. The virtual clinical experiences involved online pre‐brief, simulation, and debrief. We aimed to evaluate students’ satisfaction with this learning method. Between April and November 2020, we distributed an anonymous online survey to all participating students using a modified version of a validated satisfaction with simulation scale. We analyzed the combined responses from first‐ and second‐year virtual clinical experiences using descriptive statistics and content analysis. The total number of possible responses was 120. The mean response rate was 68.36% (n = 82.03), with a mean of 16.41 participants responding to each survey from each year group. Of the first‐year participants, 53% (n = 10) had not observed a genetic counseling consultation before attending the virtual clinical placement. Overall, 92.5% of responses indicated that students were satisfied with the virtual clinical experiences (SD = 0.05). 100% (n = 82) of responses indicated that working with standardized clients was beneficial to learning, encouraged reflection on clinical ability and was a valuable learning experience overall. However, 37.78% (n = 17) of those who participated in the virtual simulation found that the use of Zoom detracted from their clinical learning. The virtual clinical experiences increased first‐year students’ confidence about clinical placement and prepared second‐year students for telehealth. In conclusion, the adaptation to virtual clinical experiences enhanced learning for most students, prepared them for practice, met the requirements of the accreditation body and enabled all of our final year students to graduate on time.

In Fig. 2 of this article, there is no references included; the figure should have appeared as shown below.

There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes assessed across studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Only a small number of studies have measured patient-reported outcomes or included patients in the selection of outcomes that are meaningful to them. This study was a cross-sectional, qualitative study of 15 patient participants conducted to inform a core outcome set. A core outcome set is an approach to facilitate standardisation in outcome reporting, allowing direct comparison of outcomes across studies to enhance understanding of impacts and potential harms. The aim of this study was to incorporate the patient perspective in the development of a core outcome set by eliciting a detailed understanding of outcomes of importance to patients. Data were collected via online, semi-structured interviews using a novel method informed by co-design and the nominal group technique. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Outcomes elicited from patient stakeholder interviews highlighted several under-explored areas for future research. This includes the role of grief and loss in increased risk couples, the role of empowerment in conceptualising the utility of RGCS, the impact of societal context and barriers that contribute to negative experiences, and the role of genetic counselling in ensuring that information needs are met and informed choice facilitated as RGCS becomes increasingly routine. Future research should focus on incorporating outcomes that accurately reflect patient needs and experience.

This study aimed to systematically review current models for communicating polygenic scores (PGS) and psycho-behavioral outcomes of receiving PGSs.Original research on communicating PGSs and reporting on psycho-behavioral outcomes was included. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and were limited by date (2009-2021).In total, 28 articles, representing 17 studies in several disease settings were identified. There was limited consistency in PGS communication and evaluation/reporting of outcomes. Most studies (n = 14) presented risk in multiple ways (ie, numerically, verbally, and/or visually). Three studies provided personalized lifestyle advice and additional resources. Only 1 of 17 studies reported using behavior change theory to inform their PGS intervention. A total of 8 studies found no evidence of long-term negative psychosocial effects up to 12 months post result. Of 14 studies reporting on behavior, 9 found at least 1 favorable change after PGS receipt. When stratified by risk, 7 out of 9 studies found high PGS was associated with favorable changes including lifestyle, medication, and screening. Low-risk PGS was not associated with maladaptive behaviors (n = 4).PGS has the potential to benefit health behavior. High variability among studies emphasizes the need for developing standardized guidelines for communicating PGSs and evaluating psycho-behavioral outcomes. Our findings call for development of best communication practices and evidence-based interventions informed by behavior change theories.

PURPOSE:Genetic and genomic health information increasingly informs routine clinical care and treatment. This systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to integrating genetics and genomics into nurses' and physicians' usual practice (mainstreaming). METHODS:A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO generated 7873 articles, of which 48 were included. Using narrative synthesis, barriers and facilitators were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS:Barriers were limitations to genetics knowledge and skill, low confidence initiating genetics discussions, lack of resources and guidelines, and concerns about discrimination and psychological harm. Facilitators were positive attitudes toward genetics, willingness to participate in discussions upon patient initiation, and intention to engage in genetics education. CONCLUSION:Nurses and physicians are largely underprepared to integrate genetic and genomic health information into routine clinical care. Ethical, legal, and psychological concerns surrounding genetic information can lead to avoidance of genetics discussions. The knowledge-practice gap could limit patients' and families' access to vital genetic information. Building the capacity of the current and next generation of nurses and physicians to integrate genetics and genomics into usual clinical practice is essential if opportunities afforded by precision medicine are to be fully realized.