Search

Objective The current study delves into the accessibility of genetic evaluations for individuals with orofacial clefts (OC), comparing data between genetics and treatment centers across Brazil. Methods This cross-sectional retrospective study analyzed primary data from 1463 OC individuals registered in the Brazilian Database of Craniofacial Anomalies (BDCA) between 2008 and 2018 without age or sex selection. Diagnostic exam results stemming from research projects until 2023 were considered. Results Of the 1463 individuals with typical OC, 987 were non-syndromic, 462 were syndromic (SOC), 10 presented atypical forms, and three were not specified OC cases. The average age for accessing laboratory diagnosis was 8.5 years among SOC individuals. Notably, more SOC cases were registered in genetics centers than treatment and rehabilitation centers (37.1 % vs. 29 %, p = 0.0015). Those originating from genetics centers accessed diagnosis at an average age of 7.3 years, while those from treatment and rehabilitation centers experienced delays with an average age of 10.7 years (p = 0.0581). Conclusions Irrespective of the center of origin, the data highlight delayed diagnosis and challenges in accessing genetic tests for the syndromic group. Given the widespread reliance on the public health system by most of the Brazilian population, disseminating this data can significantly contribute to shaping an informed perspective on healthcare access. These insights can improve public policies tailored to the unique needs of individuals with OC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Latinas are less likely to receive genetic counseling and genetic testing (GCT) compared to non-Latina Whites because of systemic and patient-level barriers. We developed and tested fotonovelas to increase awareness of GCT among Latinas at-risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Content for the fotonovelas was drawn from an existing culturally targeted narrative video focused on improving GCT use among Latinas at-risk of HBOC. Using mixed methods, we interviewed cancer patients (n = 10) and their relatives (n = 10) to assess the preliminary efficacy of the fotonovelas through pre-and post-fotonovela items assessing self-rated knowledge of GCT and willingness to discuss cancer with family. Health workers (n = 10) provided feedback on the fotonovela content. McNemar's test was used to examine differences in the proportions of the outcomes pre- and post-fotonovelas. Interviews were transcribed and coded in Dedoose using a consensual qualitative research approach. Reading the fotonovelas increased self-rated knowledge of GCT by 22% (p = 0.16), from 50 to 60% in patients and from 63 to 100% among relatives. Analogously, reading the fotonovela increased willingness to talk about cancer with family by 33% (p = 0.02), from 70 to 100% in patients and from 38 to 75% in relatives. We identified six themes, some centered around the fotonovela's message, feedback, and perceived barriers to GCT. Overall, participants liked the use of fotonovelas to increase GCT awareness and cancer conversations with family. Fotonovelas could potentially be used as educational tools to increase GCT awareness and cancer conversations among Latino families at-risk of HBOC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pakistan has a high rate of genetic disorders and neonatal mortality concurrent with noted lack of genetic counselors and geneticists. To meet the needs of the patient population, the responsibility of providing clinical genetic services falls on general and specialty physicians. However, their education regarding these essential services is not standardized in medical school curricula nor has it ever been evaluated. The purpose of this work is to describe the self‐perceived knowledge, clinical comfort, and perspectives of Pakistani medical students toward their medical genetics' education. A web‐based survey was distributed electronically to medical schools around the country. The survey comprised of four sections: (1) participant demographics, (2) self‐perceived medical genetics knowledge, (3) level of comfort in applying genetic knowledge and skills, and (4) attitudes toward medical genetics education. Descriptive statistics and a one‐way analysis of variance were used for data analysis. Medical students in years 3, 4, and 5 (n = 473) from 25 medical schools participated in this research representing medical education in four Pakistani provinces. Most medical students reported "minimal" to "basic" knowledge of genetic testing methodology (64.7%), cancer genetics (64.9%), prenatal genetic testing (63.02%), and treatment strategies for genetic disease (72.9%). A plurality of students (37%) reported they were uncomfortable with interpreting and communicating genetic test results to patients. Medical students also expressed dissatisfaction with their medical genetics (40%) and genetic counselors training (42%). The self‐perceived knowledge and clinical comfort with genetics among Pakistani medical students was limited, especially regarding genetic testing. A significant portion (74.5%) expressed desire for additional genetics education during medical school to aid in their role as future physicians. It is important for physicians‐in‐training to have a solid understanding of genetic concepts, technologies, and genetic counseling to best support their patients. As endorsed by the participating medical students, this study supports inclusion of more robust genetics' education into Pakistan's medical school curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Germline genetic testing for cancer predisposition genes has become an essential component of cancer treatment and risk reduction. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) releases annual genetic testing guidelines that identify characteristics of patients that could be affected by a hereditary cancer syndrome. These guidelines have broadened over time and the implications for past patients of cancer genetics clinics are not well understood. This study is a retrospective chart review aimed at determining the percentage and characteristics of past patients that meet updated NCCN guidelines (Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreas [BOP] v1.2022 and Colorectal [CRC] v1.2021), patients that attended a follow‐up appointment, and patients who went on to receive genetic testing. Clinical data and characteristics were compared between the study population as a whole and the cohort of patients that met updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021. The study population consisted of 280 patients with 76 (27.1%) patients meeting updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021. The year of initial cancer genetic counseling appointment was statistically significant (p = 0.023) with patients more likely to meet NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021 with earlier initial cancer genetic counseling appointments. In the cohort that met updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021, the most common reason was a change in the NCCN guidelines (BOP or CRC) (54/76, 71.1%) with triple‐negative breast cancer diagnosed at any age being the most impactful guideline change (19/54, 35.2%). Twenty‐one patients attended a follow‐up appointment (7.5%) and of those that received genetic testing (17/21, 81%) most received negative results (13/17, 61.9%), with one pathogenic, low penetrance result (1/17, 5.9%, CHEK2 p.I157T). Provider‐initiated follow‐up was attributed to most follow‐up appointments (16/21, 76.2%) implying patients do not tend to follow‐up on their own. Education to non‐genetics providers as well as targeted implementation of follow‐up protocols possibly managed by genetic counseling assistants and utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) patient messaging could lead to improved patient follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With genetic counselor licensure now available in 32 states, the number of laboratory genetic counselors (LGCs) who are required to be licensed in multiple states has risen substantially. Although previous studies have documented the complexity of the multistate licensing (MSL) process, there has been little research on the experiences of LGCs applying for and maintaining licensure. The purpose of this study was to identify perceived barriers, recommendations, and resources for LGCs pursuing MSL. A 15‐item mixed‐methods, anonymous questionnaire was used to survey genetic counselors currently or formerly employed by genetic testing laboratories. Responses were analyzed with a combination of descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis. Of the 150 eligible participants who completed the survey, the majority worked at a commercial, non‐academic laboratory (84%, n = 126), had 1–4 years of laboratory genetic counseling experience (54%, n = 81), held non‐patient‐facing roles (65%, n = 97), and were required by their employer to hold licensure in at least one state (73%, n = 110). Most participants (86%, n = 129) felt there were barriers to MSL for LGCs, with three emergent themes: (1) resource burden, (2) complexity, and (3) legislative ambiguity. Participants described the current MSL process as tedious, cumbersome, confusing, overwhelming, and redundant. Several shared that the current licensing system undermines the intent to improve the status of the profession and actually negatively impacts patient care. Recommendations to improve MSL included overall process enhancements, like transitioning to online systems and a single central information repository for licensees, increased professional advocacy, and investing in collaborative pathways to licensure such as interstate compacts. Participants found national genetic counseling organizations, state‐based genetic counseling organizations, and genetic counseling colleagues to be the most helpful resources for understanding licensure law and where to apply for licensure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community genetic services were introduced in South Africa almost seven decades ago, with medical geneticists and genetic counsellors being formally recognized for the past 30 years. Initial training platforms were established at academic centres countrywide, and posts for relevant healthcare professionals, including medical geneticists and genetic counsellors were created in the public sector. Despite these early advances, the number of these specialists required to address the rising burden of congenital disorders in the country remains far below required targets established by the National Department of Health. The aim of this study was to analyse the retrospective, current and projected number of medical geneticists and genetic counsellors in South Africa. The results indicate the number of practicing medical geneticists (n = 13) and genetic counsellors (n = 28) are currently at 10% and 5% of capacity targets, respectively. There is unequal distribution of these specialists between the public and private healthcare sectors, and geographical maldistribution. An alarming trend of emigration is particularly prevalent among newly qualified genetic counsellors. With the proportion of congenital disorders expected to continue to rise in coming years, together with the increasing proportion of ageing South Africans, it is imperative that health workforce planning addresses the ever-widening gap between the supply, demand and unmet need for these crucial specialists in South Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In October 2020, rapid prenatal exome sequencing (pES) was introduced into routine National Health Service (NHS) care in England, requiring the coordination of care from specialist genetics, fetal medicine (FM) and laboratory services. This mixed methods study explored the experiences of professionals involved in delivering the pES service during the first 2 years of its delivery in the NHS. Methods: A survey (n = 159) and semi-structured interviews (n = 63) with healthcare professionals, including clinical geneticists, FM specialists, and clinical scientists (interviews only) were used to address: 1) Views on the pES service; 2) Capacity and resources involved in offering pES; 3) Awareness, knowledge, and educational needs; and 4) Ambitions and goals for the future. Results: Overall, professionals were positive about the pES service with 77% rating it as Good or Excellent. A number of benefits were reported, including the increased opportunity for receiving actionable results for parental decision-making, improving equity of access to genomic tests and fostering close relationships between FM and genetics departments. Nonetheless, there was evidence that the shift to offering pES in a clinical setting had brought some challenges, such as additional clinic time, administrative processes, perceived lack of autonomy in decision-making regarding pES eligibility and difficulty engaging with peripheral maternity units. Concerns were also raised about the lack of confidence and gaps in genomics knowledge amongst non-genetics professionals - especially midwives. However, the findings also highlighted value in both FM, obstetric and genetics professionals benefiting from further training with a focus on recognising and managing prenatally diagnosed genetic conditions. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals are enthusiastic about the benefits of pES, and through multi-collaborative working, have developed relationships that have contributed to effective communication across specialisms. Although limitations on resources and variation in knowledge about pES have impacted service delivery, professionals were hopeful that improvements to infrastructure and the upskilling of all professionals involved in the pathway would optimise the benefits of pES for both parents and professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Increasing demand for genetic testing and counseling among families with hereditary cancers has drawn attention to the genetic skills and knowledge of healthcare professionals (HCPs). However, many HCPs face challenges regarding confidence in communicating genetic risk to their patients and accessing genetic training programs. Developing genomic educational strategies and standardizing the curriculum for HCPs is critical to improving genetic care. This systematic review identified the learning needs of HCPs and compared them across professions, along with their perspectives on essential information for families affected by hereditary cancer. While HCPs recognized the importance of providing a wide range of information to families affected by hereditary cancer and emphasized enhancing practical counseling skills, their learning needs varied by profession. Our findings have implications for developing training programs for HCPs, underscoring the importance of developing targeted training programs and resources aligned with their specific profession. Background: The increased demand for genetic testing and counseling necessitates healthcare professionals (HCPs) to improve their genetic competency through training programs. This systematic review identified HCPs' learning needs and their perspectives on essential information for families with hereditary cancer. Methods: This review covered studies published from 2013 to 2024 across five databases. Data were analyzed using a content analysis. Results: Thirteen studies involving 332 HCPs were analyzed. Most studies focused on the learning needs of physicians caring for families affected by Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in North America and Europe. HCPs required training emphasizing practical counseling skills over the basics of genetics. Learning needs varied by profession: physicians needed training in assessing cancer risk and supporting decision-making in risk management; nurses required information on resources and the genetic care system; genetic counselors sought guidance on family communication and planning. Essential information identified for families included risk-reducing strategies, personalized cancer risk assessment, family implications, psychological issues, (cascade) genetic testing, and social concerns. Conclusions: The findings have implications for the development of training programs for HCPs, emphasizing the need for tailored training based on professions. Future research should explore the needs of HCPs caring for families with diverse hereditary cancers and cultural backgrounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract available.

We conducted an exploratory survey of genetic counselors internationally to assess similarities and differences in reported practice activities. Between November 2018 and January 2020 we conducted a mass emailing to an estimated 5600 genetic counselors in different countries and regions. We obtained 189 useable responses representing 22 countries, which are included in an aggregate manner. Data from countries with 10 or more responses, comprising 82% of the total (N = 156), are the primary focus of this report: Australia (13), Canada (26), USA (59), UK (17), France (12), Japan (19) and India (10). Twenty activities were identified as common (≥74%) across these countries, encompassing most subcategories of genetic counseling activity. Activities with most frequent endorsement include: reviewing referrals and medical records and identifying genetic testing options as part of case preparation; taking family and medical histories; performing and sharing risk assessment; and educating clients about basic genetic information, test options, outcomes and implications, including management recommendations on the basis of the test results. Genetic counselors also consistently establish rapport, tailor the educational process, facilitate informed decision making and recognize factors that may impact the counseling interaction. The least endorsed activities were in the Medical History category. Notable differences between countries were observed in the endorsement of 33 activities, primarily in the Contracting and Establishing Rapport, Family History, Medical History, Assessing Patients Psychosocially and Providing Psychosocial Support categories. Generalizations about international practice patterns are limited by the low response rate. However, this study is, to our knowledge, the first to systematically compare the clinical practice and specific activities of genetic counselors working in different countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic assistant positions are now widely integrated in genetic services to address genetic counselor shortages and ultimately improve efficiency. While over 40% of genetic counselors report working with a genetic assistant ("NSGC Professional Status Survey: Work Environment," 2022), there is limited information about the genetic assistant workforce. The present study surveyed 164 genetic assistants and 139 individuals with experience working with genetic assistants (specifically genetic counselors, residents, geneticists, and administrative staff). Information was collected about genetic assistant demographics, positions, roles and responsibilities, and career paths. The data revealed that the genetic assistant workforce is demographically similar to the genetic counselor workforce and that most genetic assistants intend to pursue a career in genetic counseling. The genetic assistant positions were heterogeneous in terms of the roles and responsibilities assigned, even when separated by work setting. Lastly, participants reported that there were at least 144 genetic assistants across their institutions, a number that has likely grown since the time of the survey. The findings from this study highlight important opportunities for future research and focus, especially development of a scope of practice and competencies for genetic assistants, as well as the potential to use genetic assistant positions as an avenue to improve diversity within the genetic counseling workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionIn October 2020, rapid prenatal exome sequencing (pES) was introduced into routine National Health Service (NHS) care in England, requiring the coordination of care from specialist genetics, fetal medicine (FM) and laboratory services. This mixed methods study explored the experiences of professionals involved in delivering the pES service during the first 2 years of its delivery in the NHS.MethodsA survey (n = 159) and semi-structured interviews (n = 63) with healthcare professionals, including clinical geneticists, FM specialists, and clinical scientists (interviews only) were used to address: 1) Views on the pES service; 2) Capacity and resources involved in offering pES; 3) Awareness, knowledge, and educational needs; and 4) Ambitions and goals for the future.ResultsOverall, professionals were positive about the pES service with 77% rating it as Good or Excellent. A number of benefits were reported, including the increased opportunity for receiving actionable results for parental decision-making, improving equity of access to genomic tests and fostering close relationships between FM and genetics departments. Nonetheless, there was evidence that the shift to offering pES in a clinical setting had brought some challenges, such as additional clinic time, administrative processes, perceived lack of autonomy in decision-making regarding pES eligibility and difficulty engaging with peripheral maternity units. Concerns were also raised about the lack of confidence and gaps in genomics knowledge amongst non-genetics professionals - especially midwives. However, the findings also highlighted value in both FM, obstetric and genetics professionals benefiting from further training with a focus on recognising and managing prenatally diagnosed genetic conditions.ConclusionHealthcare professionals are enthusiastic about the benefits of pES, and through multi-collaborative working, have developed relationships that have contributed to effective communication across specialisms. Although limitations on resources and variation in knowledge about pES have impacted service delivery, professionals were hopeful that improvements to infrastructure and the upskilling of all professionals involved in the pathway would optimise the benefits of pES for both parents and professionals.

Abstract Background Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing. Methods The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services. Discussion With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine. Trial registration This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04455698) on July 2, 2020.

Background Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing. Methods The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services. Discussion With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Irish Health Service objectives state that patients with rare diseases should have timely access to genomic diagnostics with appropriate pre and post-test counselling. However, waiting times for clinical genetics outpatient appointments, during the study period, were up to two years as staffing levels remain low. A targeted public online survey was conducted in January 2022 to capture the experiences of Rare Disease families trying to access genetic testing and clinical genetic clinics in the Irish Republic. Irish patients experience significant waiting times to access clinical genetic services and self-report anxiety and stress, related to delayed access to diagnosis, clarity around recurrence risk and follow-up management. This negatively impacts personal decisions around family planning, education and employment and has a significant impact on family members seeking clarity on their own risk. Mainstream genetic testing activity is significant. Families report concern over the competency of health care professionals arranging and delivering genetic results and delays in accessing clinical genetics expertise to take them through the clinical implications. Timely access to clinical genetics expertise is important to ensure families with rare diseases have an appropriate understanding of the medical and reproductive implications of a genetic diagnosis and access to relevant care pathways. A national framework to develop competency in genomic literacy for health-care professionals including a national genetic test directory may be beneficial. Clinical genetics teams require ongoing support and investment to ensure the delivery of a safe and effective service for Irish families with rare diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: Genomic medicine harbors the real potential to improve the health and healthcare journey of patients, care provider experiences, and improve the health system efficiency—even reducing healthcare costs. There is expected to be an exponential growth in medically necessary new genome-based tests and test approaches in the coming years. Testing can also create scientific research and commercial opportunities beyond healthcare decision making. The purpose of this research is to generate a better understanding of Canada’s state of readiness for genomic medicine, and to provide some insights for other healthcare systems. (2) Methods: A mixed-methods approach of a review of the literature and key informant interviews with a purposive sample of experts was used. The health system readiness was assessed using a previously published set of conditions. (3) Results: Canada has created some of the established conditions, but further action needs to be taken to improve the state of readiness for genome-based medicine. The important gaps to be filled are the need for linked information systems and data integration; evaluative processes that are timely and transparent; navigational tools for care providers; dedicated funding to facilitate rapid onboarding and support test development and proficiency testing; and broader engagement with innovation stakeholders beyond care providers and patients. These findings highlight the role of the organizational context, social influence, and other factors that are known to affect the diffusion of innovation within health systems.

Abstract Background Exome sequencing is recommended as a first-line investigation for patients with a developmental delay or intellectual disability. This approach has not been implemented in most resource-constraint settings, including Africa, due to the high cost of implementation. Instead, patients have limited access to services and testing options. Here, we evaluate the effectiveness of a limited genetic testing strategy and contrast the findings to a conceivable outcome if exome sequencing were available instead. Results A retrospective audit of 934 patient files presenting to a medical genetics clinic in South Africa showed that 83% of patients presented with developmental delay as a clinical feature. Patients could be divided into three groups, representing distinct diagnostic pathways. Patient Group A (18%; mean test cost $131) were confirmed with aneuploidies, following a simple, inexpensive test. Patient Group B (25%; mean test cost $140) presented with clinically recognizable conditions but only 39% received a genetic diagnostic confirmation due to limited testing options. Patient Group C – the largest group (57%; mean test cost $337) – presented with heterogenous conditions and DD, and 92% remained undiagnosed after limited available testing was performed. Conclusions Patients with DD are the largest group of patients seen in medical genetics clinics in South Africa. When clinical features are not distinct, limited testing options drastically restricts diagnostic yield. A cost- and time analysis shows most patients would benefit from first-line exome sequencing, reducing their individual diagnostic odysseys.

(1) Background: Genomic medicine harbors the real potential to improve the health and healthcare journey of patients, care provider experiences, and improve the health system efficiency—even reducing healthcare costs. There is expected to be an exponential growth in medically necessary new genome-based tests and test approaches in the coming years. Testing can also create scientific research and commercial opportunities beyond healthcare decision making. The purpose of this research is to generate a better understanding of Canada's state of readiness for genomic medicine, and to provide some insights for other healthcare systems. (2) Methods: A mixed-methods approach of a review of the literature and key informant interviews with a purposive sample of experts was used. The health system readiness was assessed using a previously published set of conditions. (3) Results: Canada has created some of the established conditions, but further action needs to be taken to improve the state of readiness for genome-based medicine. The important gaps to be filled are the need for linked information systems and data integration; evaluative processes that are timely and transparent; navigational tools for care providers; dedicated funding to facilitate rapid onboarding and support test development and proficiency testing; and broader engagement with innovation stakeholders beyond care providers and patients. These findings highlight the role of the organizational context, social influence, and other factors that are known to affect the diffusion of innovation within health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background : Patient-facing digital technologies may reduce barriers to and alleviate the burden on genetics services. However, no work has synthesised the evidence for patient-facing digital interventions for genomics/genetics education and empowerment, or to facilitate service engagement more broadly. It is also unclear which groups have been engaged by digital interventions. Aim: This systematic review explores which existing patient-facing digital technologies have been used for genomics/genetics education and empowerment, or to facilitate service engagement, and for whom and for which purposes the interventions have been developed. Methods: The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eight databases were searched for literature. Information was extracted into an Excel sheet and analysed in a narrative manner. Quality assessments were conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: Twenty-four studies were included, of which 21 were moderate or high quality. The majority (88%) were conducted in the United States of America or within a clinical setting (79%). More than half (63%) of the interventions were web-based tools, and almost all focussed on educating users (92%). There were promising results regarding educating patients and their families and facilitating engagement with genetics services. Few of the studies focussed on empowering patients or were community-based. Conclusion: Digital interventions may be used to deliver information about genetics concepts and conditions, and positively impact service engagement. However, there is insufficient evidence related to empowering patients and engaging underserved communities or consanguineous couples. Future work should focus on co-developing content with end users and incorporating interactive features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Underserved patients face substantial barriers to receiving cancer genetic services. The Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study evaluated ways to increase access to genetic testing for individuals in underserved populations at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS). Here, we report the successful implementation of CHARM in a low-resource environment and the development of sustainable processes to continue genetic risk assessment in this setting. The research team involved key clinical personnel and patient advisors at Denver Health to provide input on study methods and materials. Through iterative and collaborative stakeholder engagement, the team identified barriers and developed solutions that would both facilitate participation in CHARM and be feasible to implement and sustain long term in clinical care. With a focus on infrastructure building, educational modules were developed to increase awareness among referring providers, and standard methods of identifying and managing HCS patients were implemented in the electronic medical record. Three hundred sixty-four DH patients successfully completed the risk assessment tool within the study, and we observed a sustained increase in referrals to genetics for HCS (from 179 in 2017 to 427 in 2021 post-intervention). Implementation of the CHARM study at a low-resourced safety net health system resulted in sustainable improvements in access to cancer genetic risk assessment and services that continue even after the study ended. Trial registration NCT03426878 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PurposeAccess to genetics health-care services is often complicated by the distance to hospitals, workforce shortages, and insurance coverage. Despite technological advances and decreasing costs of genetic sequencing, the benefits of personalized medicine may be inaccessible to many patients. To assess potential disparities in care, we examined the genetics workforce in California and geographical issues that people encounter in seeking care.MethodsData on all board-certified genetics providers were analyzed including medical geneticists (MGs) and genetic counselors (GCs) in California. To assess distance traveled for care, we computed the distance patients traveled for n = 288 visits to University of California-San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Genetics. We performed geographic optimization to minimize the distance to genetics providers.ResultsThe provider-to-patient ratio in California is 1:330,000 for MGs, 1:100,000 for GCs, and 1:1,520,000 for biochemical MGs. Genetics providers are concentrated in major metropolitan areas in California. People travel up to 386 miles for genetics care within the state (mean = 76.6 miles).ConclusionThere are substantial geographic barriers to genetics care that could increase disparities. Our findings highlight a challenging genetics workforce shortage. The shortage may be even greater due to care subspecialization or lack of full-time equivalency and staffing. We are currently promoting efforts to increase remote health-care options, training, and modified models of care.

Background: Exome sequencing is recommended as a first-line investigation for patients with a developmental delay or intellectual disability. This approach has not been implemented in most resource-constraint settings, including Africa, due to the high cost of implementation. Instead, patients have limited access to services and testing options. Here, we evaluate the effectiveness of a limited genetic testing strategy and contrast the findings to a conceivable outcome if exome sequencing were available instead. Results: A retrospective audit of 934 patient files presenting to a medical genetics clinic in South Africa showed that 83% of patients presented with developmental delay as a clinical feature. Patients could be divided into three groups, representing distinct diagnostic pathways. Patient Group A (18%; mean test cost $131) were confirmed with aneuploidies, following a simple, inexpensive test. Patient Group B (25%; mean test cost $140) presented with clinically recognizable conditions but only 39% received a genetic diagnostic confirmation due to limited testing options. Patient Group C – the largest group (57%; mean test cost $337) – presented with heterogenous conditions and DD, and 92% remained undiagnosed after limited available testing was performed. Conclusions: Patients with DD are the largest group of patients seen in medical genetics clinics in South Africa. When clinical features are not distinct, limited testing options drastically restricts diagnostic yield. A cost- and time analysis shows most patients would benefit from first-line exome sequencing, reducing their individual diagnostic odysseys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic counselors strive to provide high‐quality genetic services. To do so, it is essential to define quality in genetic counseling and identify opportunities for improvement. This Professional Issues article provides an overview of the evaluation of healthcare quality in genetic counseling. The National Society of Genetic Counselors' Research, Quality, and Outcomes Committee partnered with Discern Health, a value‐based healthcare policy consulting firm, to develop a care continuum model of genetic counseling. Using the proposed model, currently available quality measures relevant to genetic counseling in the US healthcare system were assessed, allowing for the identification of gaps and priority areas for further development. A total of 560 quality measures were identified that can be applied to various aspects of the care continuum model across a range of clinical specialty areas in genetic counseling, although few measures were specific to genetic counseling or genetic conditions. Areas where quality measures were lacking included: attitudes toward genetic testing, family communication, stigma, and issues of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We discuss these findings and other strategies for an evidence‐based approach to quality in genetic counseling. Strategic directions for the genetic counseling profession should include a consolidated approach to research on quality and value of genetic counseling, development of quality metrics and patient‐experience measures, and engagement with other improvement activities. These strategies will allow for benchmarking, performance improvement, and future implementation in accountability programs which will strengthen genetic counseling as a profession that provides evidence‐based high‐quality care to all patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing has the power to identify individuals with increased predisposition to disease, allowing individuals the opportunity to make informed management, treatment and reproductive decisions. As genomic medicine continues to be integrated into aspects of everyday patient care and the indications for genetic testing continue to expand, genetic services are increasingly being offered by non-genetic clinicians. The current complexities of genetic testing highlight the need to support and ensure non-genetic professionals are adequately equipped with the knowledge and skills to provide services. We describe a series of misdiagnosed/mismanaged cases, highlighting the common pitfalls in genetic testing to identify the knowledge gaps and where education and support is needed. We highlight that education focusing on differential diagnoses, test selection and result interpretation is needed. Collaboration and communication between genetic and non-genetic clinicians and integration of genetic counsellors into different medical settings are important. This will minimise the risks and maximise the benefits of genetic testing, ensuring adverse outcomes are mitigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Given limited ambulatory access to genetics specialists, innovative service delivery solutions are needed. Electronic consultation (e-consult) programs are growing to connect clinicians to specialists. We explored the utilization and outcomes of a genetics and genomics e-consult program at Massachusetts General Hospital system in its first year. Methods: A retrospective observational analysis of genetics e-consults ordered between April 2021 and March 2022. Results: In its first year, the e-consult service triaged 153 requests and completed 122 in a median of 2.0 days. Of the 97 e-consults with actionable recommendations, there was documentation that most ordering clinicians followed through (82%). A variety of providers used the service, though the majority (77%) were generalists. Conclusion: e-Consult models should be considered as one way to increase access to genetics expertise.

Genetic testing and spending on that testing have grown rapidly since the mapping of the human genome in 2003. However, it is not widely known how many tests there are, how they are used, and how they are paid for. Little evidence from large data sets about their use has emerged. We shed light on the issue of genetic testing by providing an overview of the testing landscape. We examined test availability and spending for the full spectrum of genetic tests, using unique data sources on test availability and commercial payer spending for privately insured populations, focusing particularly on tests measuring multiple genes in the period 2014-17. We found that there were approximately 75,000 genetic tests on the market, with about ten new tests entering the market daily. Prenatal tests accounted for the highest percentage of spending on genetic tests, and spending on hereditary cancer tests accounted for the second-highest. Our results provide insights for those interested in assessing genetic testing markets, test usage, and health policy implications, including current debates over the most appropriate regulatory and payer coverage mechanisms.

Introduction/Objectives: Collectively, genetic diseases are not that rare, and with increasing availability of genetics-informed healthcare management, primary care providers (PCPs) are more often asked to screen for or provide genetic services. Previous studies have identified barriers that impact PCPs' ability to provide genetic services, including limited knowledge, training, and time/resources. This study set out to identify specific barriers limiting genetics service provision by PCPs within the Southeastern Regional Genetics Network (SERN) and resources that would help eliminate those barriers. Methods: PCPs were recruited through provider networks and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews, conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 coders using MAXQDA software. Thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Eleven interviews were conducted. Three predominant themes emerged from the data regarding factors impacting use of genetic services: system-wide factors, provider-specific factors, and patient factors. System-wide barriers included a lack of genetics providers and logistic challenges, which led to some PCPs coordinating referrals with other specialists or independently managing patients. Regarding provider-specific barriers, PCPs reported lack of genetics knowledge making referrals challenging. When possible, many PCPs contacted genetics providers for assistance. When not possible, some PCPs reached out to other colleagues or specialists for guidance. Patient-specific barriers included concerns or lack of information regarding genetics and unmet social needs. Many PCPs provided additional education regarding genetics appointments or testing benefits to their patients. Assistance from genetic counselors, electronic medical record systems that support referral to genetics, prior experience referring to genetics, established communication channels with genetics professionals, and highly motivated patients all facilitated improved collaboration with genetic services. PCPs provided suggestions for future resources to support interactions with genetics, including clear referral guidelines, increased access to genetics providers, improved test ordering processes, increased access to genetic education, and communication systems. Conclusions: PCPs face barriers at 3 different levels when engaging with genetic services: systems, providers, and patients. This study identified strategies that PCPs use to address these barriers, which are dependent on individual resources and practice settings. These strategies demonstrate resourcefulness in working to incorporate genetics into clinics operating at maximum capacity. By targeting barriers that uniquely impact providers, systems, and patients, as well as building upon strategies that PCPs are already using, medical providers can support PCPs to help with the provision of genetic services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health systems internationally must prepare for a future of genetic/genomic testing to inform healthcare decision-making while creating research opportunities. High functioning testing services will require additional considerations and health system conditions beyond traditional diagnostic testing. Based on a literature review of good practices, key informant interviews, and expert discussion, this article attempts to synthesize what conditions are necessary, and what good practice may look like. It is intended to aid policymakers and others designing future systems of genome-based care and care prevention. These conditions include creating communities of practice and healthcare system networks; resource planning; across-region informatics; having a clear entry/exit point for innovation; evaluative function(s); concentrated or coordinated service models; mechanisms for awareness and care navigation; integrating innovation and healthcare delivery functions; and revisiting approaches to financing, education and training, regulation, and data privacy and security. The list of conditions we propose was developed with an emphasis on describing conditions that would be applicable to any healthcare system, regardless of capacity, organizational structure, financing, population characteristics, standardization of care processes, or underlying culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing has been implemented in clinical practice. However, data on physician's practices and education related to cancer genetics, risk assessment and clinical management in Greece, is limited. In Greece, genetic counseling is performed by treating physicians in collaboration with clinical laboratory geneticists due to the absence of medical geneticists and genetic counsellors. We evaluated treating physicians' experience on genetic testing for hereditary cancer and counseling practices in Greece, thus providing critical areas for improvement of genetic counseling processes. A 28-question survey was used to assess physicians' experience with genetic testing practices, factors that affect their clinical management and decision making and limitations in their education. Of 250 physicians, 208 (83%) completed the survey; of whom 89 (42.8%) were medical oncologists, 88 general surgeons (42.3%), 26 gynecologists (12.5%) and 5 (2.4%) of other specialties. Overall, 91.8% of participants referred patients for genetic testing, with 51.8% recommending multigene panel testing. While most clinicians (84%) reported lack of a clinical genetics department at their institution, 75.7% referred patients for genetic counseling at available departments or healthcare professionals with expertise in genetic counseling. Overall, 68.8% of respondents reported no training or moderate training on cancer genetics. A higher proportion of medical oncologists reported sufficient/very satisfactory training (40.9%) compared to general surgeons (27.3%) or gynecologists (11.5%) (p = 0.012). Time spent on pre- and post-testing sessions varied significantly among respondents. Of 199 physicians, 70% would manage patients with BRCA1 VUS as patients with pathogenic variants, mainly surgeons (83.1%) and gynecologists (80%), compared to oncologists (52.3%) (p < 0.001). Additionally, 64% of physicians treating patients with breast and ovarian cancer would recommend an intervention based on the presence of a BRCA1 VUS. Most respondents (87%) were interested in receiving additional education on cancer risk assessment. Limited consensus was observed during physicians' genetic testing, counseling practices and clinical management of patients with increased predisposition to cancer. Our findings highlight the need for improvement in physician education on cancer risk assessment and increase of genetic counseling resources and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family-history assessment can identify individuals above population-risk for cancer to enable targeted Screening, Prevention and Early Detection (SPED). The online patient-facing cancer Family History Questionnaire Service (cFHQS) is a digitalised, resource efficient tool for family history data capture to facilitate this. The capturing of digital data from cFHQS allows for data interrogation of patients referred to Clinical Genetics for the purposes of service improvement. Digital data from 4,044 cFHQS respondents over a three-year period was collected and interrogated with respect to the number and type of familial tumour diagnoses to enable service improvement and streamlining of referral pathways. 81% of colorectal and 71% of breast screening assessments were population- or moderate-risk. Most patients who completed cFHQS reported more than one diagnosis of cancer/tumour/polyps in their family. 2.5% of family history assessment patients had a second indication that required assessment that would have been missed if single tumour type assessment was undertaken. Implementation of an innovative, digital family history data collection pathway has allowed large scale interrogation of referral patterns and assessment outcomes to enable service development. The high volume of inappropriate referrals to Clinical Genetics for population and moderate risk patients highlighted the need for dedicated secondary care pathway provision for these patients. The use of cFHQS streamlined family history assessment allows for redistribution of resources to improve equity and access to genetic cancer risk assessment., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: The current study delves into the accessibility of genetic evaluations for individuals with orofacial clefts (OC), comparing data between genetics and treatment centers across Brazil., Methods: This cross-sectional retrospective study analyzed primary data from 1463 OC individuals registered in the Brazilian Database of Craniofacial Anomalies (BDCA) between 2008 and 2018 without age or sex selection. Diagnostic exam results stemming from research projects until 2023 were considered., Results: Of the 1463 individuals with typical OC, 987 were non-syndromic, 462 were syndromic (SOC), 10 presented atypical forms, and three were not specified OC cases. The average age for accessing laboratory diagnosis was 8.5 years among SOC individuals. Notably, more SOC cases were registered in genetics centers than treatment and rehabilitation centers (37.1 % vs. 29 %, p = 0.0015). Those originating from genetics centers accessed diagnosis at an average age of 7.3 years, while those from treatment and rehabilitation centers experienced delays with an average age of 10.7 years (p = 0.0581)., Conclusions: Irrespective of the center of origin, the data highlight delayed diagnosis and challenges in accessing genetic tests for the syndromic group. Given the widespread reliance on the public health system by most of the Brazilian population, disseminating this data can significantly contribute to shaping an informed perspective on healthcare access. These insights can improve public policies tailored to the unique needs of individuals with OC., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Pakistan with a population of approximately 200 million people faces a significant burden of genetic disorders. Higher preference for consanguinity (73%) is one of the significant reasons. Despite being a hub for rare genetic disorders, the country lacks professionally trained genetic counselors due to the absence of postgraduate degree programs or diplomas in genetic counseling. This shortage of specialized personnel results in inadequate and limited genetic counseling practices nationwide. This study aimed to highlight the urgent need for genetic counseling in Pakistan, focusing on the gaps within both society and the healthcare infrastructure. A survey-based study involving n = 101 participants was conducted to assess the demand for genetic counseling among medical professionals in Lahore, Pakistan. The study targeted five categories of medical specialists-gynecologists, oncologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and ultrasonologists-working in both private and public healthcare settings in Lahore. The survey included a questionnaire covering demographic information, 10 general questions, and a case study with follow-up questions. The survey was conducted both online and through in-person visits. Our findings reveal a significant lack of awareness among healthcare providers, with 91.1% of respondents unaware of any genetic counseling services or genetic counselors in Lahore. The research underscores the crucial role of genetic counselors, with the vast majority (99%) of specialists expressing an urgent need for their presence in Pakistan's healthcare system. This study highlights that only qualified genetic counselors can effectively address genetic issues. Furthermore, it advocates for the introduction of specialized professional training programs to address this pressing need in the country., (© 2024 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

In the Pakistani/British Pakistani community in England it is quite common for people to marry close cousin relatives, which can increase the chances of certain genetic problems in their children. Families in these situations often have little knowledge of genetics and encounter difficulties accessing genetic counselling services and culturally appropriate genetics information is needed to support these families. We describe the co-design of a prototype culturally sensitive smart phone app with the British Pakistani community, to improve understanding of genetics and genetic services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emerging diseases such as the Coronavirus Disease (COVID‐19) have exposed severe weaknesses in the United States and global health. Healthcare systems have struggled and are still severely challenged and strained by this pandemic. It is clear that additional resources are needed to support healthcare providers in managing this and future pandemics. Genetic counselors can play an important supporting role in this fragile ecosystem because their comprehensive and broad training makes them uniquely qualified to meet many of the challenges that arise when healthcare workers and patients are faced with novel diseases. This paper describes the recent involvement of a telegenetic counseling company (Metis Genetics) in communicating and explaining COVID‐19 serum antibody results to patients and physicians. This experience demonstrates how genetic counselors may be called upon to play a vital supporting role in the management of infectious disease pandemics. From May 2020 to July 2020, our genetic counseling telegenetics team was asked to provide support to more than 1,580 patients who underwent serum COVID‐19 antibody testing and to educate their healthcare providers on the performance properties of this new test. The genetic counselors were able to utilize their expertise to convey test results, information on Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, COVID‐19 fact‐based evidence, to provide psychological support and reassurance to patients, and to respond to providers questions about the test. This experience suggests that the genetic counselors' skillset that has allowed the profession to continuously evolve can also be used in the management of pandemics by communicating directly with the public, supporting other healthcare workers, and assisting individual patients and families navigate the many medical and psychological issues caused by such events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Telegenetics is the use of telemedicine to deliver clinical genetic services to patients. During the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), telegenetics was essential for the Center of Personalized Genetic Healthcare (CPGH). This study reviews and analyzes in the context of the RE-AIM framework CPGH's rapid implementation of telegenetics and its impact. We conducted a chart review of all out-patient telegenetics encounters scheduled in CPGH during the first five weeks of the COVID-19 PHE. Data analyzed included demographics; number of encounters scheduled; subspecialties and providers; outcome of encounter (completed, cancelled, no- show); and telehealth platform used. Data were compared to data for out-patient encounters in 2019. In the first five weeks of the COVID-19 PHE, 465 virtual visits were scheduled and 428 were completed, involving all six subspecialties and 86% of CPGH providers. The no-show plus cancellation rate was significantly lower than in 2019. By week four, CPGH's virtual visit volume was 82% of its out-patient volume during the same time period in 2019. Patients over 60 and Black patients were significantly more likely to use phone-audio only appointments. CPGH rapidly implemented telegenetic services to continue providing care to patients. We identified success factors that enabled this. However, our analysis also identified a possible "digital divide" for Black and older patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The communication of genomic results to patients and families with rare diseases raise distinctive challenges. However, there is little evidence about optimal methods to communicate results to this group of service users. To address this gap, we worked with rare disease families and health professionals from two genetic/genomic services, one in the United Kingdom and one in the Czech Republic, to co-design that best meet their needs. Using the participatory methodology of Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD), we conducted observations of clinical appointments (n=49) and interviews with family participants (n=23) and health professionals (n=22) to gather their experience of sharing/receiving results. The findings informed a facilitated co-design process, comprising 3 feedback events at each site and a series of meetings and remote consultations. Participants identified a total of four areas of current service models in need of improvement, and co-designed six prototypes of quality improvement interventions. The main finding was the identification of post-test care as the shared priority for improvement for both health professionals and families at the two sites. Our findings indicate the need to strengthen the link between diagnostics (whether or not a pathogenic variant is found) and post-test care, including psychosocial and community support. This raises implications for the reconfigurations of genomic service models, the redefinition of professional roles and responsibilities and the involvement of rare disease patients and families in health care research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Advances in genetics and sequencing technologies are enabling the identification of more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility who could benefit from tailored screening and prevention recommendations. While cancer family history information is used in primary care settings to identify unaffected patients who could benefit from a cancer genetics evaluation, this information is underutilized. System-level population health management strategies are needed to assist health care systems in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic services. In addition, because of the limited number of trained genetics specialists and increasing patient volume, the development of innovative and sustainable approaches to delivering cancer genetic services is essential. Methods We are conducting a randomized controlled trial, entitled Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE), to address these needs. The trial is comparing uptake of genetic counseling, uptake of genetic testing, and patient adherence to management recommendations for automated, patient-directed versus enhanced standard of care cancer genetics services delivery models. An algorithm-based system that utilizes structured cancer family history data available in the electronic health record (EHR) is used to identify unaffected patients who receive primary care at the study sites and meet current guidelines for cancer genetic testing. We are enrolling eligible patients at two healthcare systems (University of Utah Health and New York University Langone Health) through outreach to a randomly selected sample of 2780 eligible patients in the two sites, with 1:1 randomization to the genetic services delivery arms within sites. Study outcomes are assessed through genetics clinic records, EHR, and two follow-up questionnaires at 4 weeks and 12 months after last genetic counseling contactpre-test genetic counseling. Discussion BRIDGE is being conducted in two healthcare systems with different clinical structures and patient populations. Innovative aspects of the trial include a randomized comparison of a chatbot-based genetic services delivery model to standard of care, as well as identification of at-risk individuals through a sustainable EHR-based system. The findings from the BRIDGE trial will advance the state of the science in identification of unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility and delivery of genetic services to those patients. Trial registration BRIDGE is registered as NCT03985852 . The trial was registered on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov .

ObjectiveTo assess current practice, advise minimum standards, and identify educational gaps relevant to genetic screening, counseling, and testing of women affected by gynecologic cancers.MethodsThe Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) organized a multidisciplinary summit that included representatives from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Society Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and patient advocacy groups, BrightPink and Facing our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE). Three subject areas were discussed: care delivery models for genetic testing, barriers to genetic testing, and educational opportunities for providers of genetic testing.ResultsThe group endorsed current SGO, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and NSGC genetic testing guidelines for women affected with ovarian, tubal, peritoneal cancers, or DNA mismatch repair deficient endometrial cancer. Three main areas of unmet need were identified: timely and universal genetic testing for women with ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers; education regarding minimum standards for genetic counseling and testing; and barriers to implementation of testing of both affected individuals as well as cascade testing of family members. Consensus building among all stakeholders resulted in an action plan to address gaps in education of gynecologic oncology providers and delivery of cancer genetics care.

Genetic testing has become increasingly integrated into all areas of healthcare, and complex genetic testing usage continues to grow; thus, the demand for genetic counseling (GC) is likely to increase. However, it is unclear whether the current clinical GC capacity is sufficient for meeting the existing demand. This review describes the current issues, challenges, and future perspectives of GC in Korea based on a professional survey conducted among laboratory physicians. In view of the growing GC demand in the clinical setting, participants expressed a concern about the lack of support from the national healthcare insurance policy and legal requirements, such as certification, for GC practice. The implementation of genetic testing in the overall healthcare system in Korea is in an early phase. Proper implementation can be achieved through education and training of specialists, collaboration among healthcare personnel, proper regulatory oversight, genomic policies, and public awareness. Understanding the current GC capacity, issues, and challenges is a prerequisite for effective strategic planning by healthcare systems considering the expected growth in the demand for clinical genetic services over the next few decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing is an instrumental tool used to determine whether an individual has a predisposition to certain cancers. Knowing of a hereditary cancer predisposition may allow a patient and their family to consider high‐risk screening or risk‐reducing options. Genetic counselors work with physicians to identify patients at increased risk for genetic testing using available guidelines such as those provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Information within one hospital system's cancer registry was used to identify individuals who qualify for genetic testing. This includes patients with a history of cancer of the breast (diagnosis ≤45, triple negative (TN) ≤60, and male), ovaries, colon (diagnosis ≤50), or uterus (diagnosis ≤50). Within this hospital system's registry, there are six cancer centers. Data were collected from cancer centers that utilized genetic counselors (GCs), and cancer centers that did not (non‐GC) to determine whether there was a difference in genetic testing rates between GC and non‐GC cancer centers. An analysis of 695 patients demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of eligible patients undergoing genetic testing at the GC cancer centers than at the non‐GC cancer centers (91.6% versus 68.7%, p <.001). Further analysis of specific cancers showed a significantly higher uptake of genetic testing for eligible patients with colon cancer (90.8% versus 50%, p <.001), breast cancer ≤45 (99.5% versus 86%, p <.001), and ovarian cancer (91.3% versus 62.8%, p <.001) at the GC cancer centers than at the non‐GC cancer centers. There was no significant difference in the proportion of testing of TN breast cancer ≤60 or uterine cancer ≤50 between cancer centers. These data suggest that having a GC working within a cancer center increases the ability to identify and offer testing to patients who meet NCCN genetic testing criteria based on their cancer type. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) is characterised by heart rate corrected QT interval prolongation and life-threatening arrhythmias, leading to syncope and sudden death. Variations in genes encoding for cardiac ion channels, accessory ion channel subunits or proteins modulating the function of the ion channel have been identified as disease-causing mutations in up to 75% of all LQTS cases. Based on the underlying genetic defect, LQTS has been subdivided into different subtypes. Growing insights into the genetic background and pathophysiology of LQTS has led to the identification of genotype-phenotype relationships for the most common genetic subtypes, the recognition of genetic and non-genetic modifiers of phenotype, optimisation of risk stratification algorithms and the discovery of gene-specific therapies in LQTS. Nevertheless, despite these great advancements in the LQTS field, large gaps in knowledge still exist. For example, up to 25% of LQTS cases still remain genotype elusive, which hampers proper identification of family members at risk, and it is still largely unknown what determines the large variability in disease severity, where even within one family an identical mutation causes malignant arrhythmias in some carriers, while in other carriers, the disease is clinically silent. In this review, we summarise the current evidence available on the diagnosis, clinical management and therapeutic strategies in LQTS. We also discuss new scientific developments and areas of research, which are expected to increase our understanding of the complex genetic architecture in genotype-negative patients, lead to improved risk stratification in asymptomatic mutation carriers and more targeted (gene-specific and even mutation-specific) therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Genetic eye diseases are among the top ten causes of ocular health burden. Asia accounts for nearly two-thirds of the global burden of genetic eye diseases. A great deal of resources is being invested in genetic research and development of genetic services including gene testing laboratories and genetic counseling in India. These efforts will be meaningful only if the public and clinicians are aware of their existence. This study aimed to understand the level of knowledge about genetic eye diseases and genetic services and attitudes toward genetic testing and gene therapy in four groups of participants (undergraduate medical students, paramedical staff, non-ophthalmologist doctors, and the general public). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey in India. Four hundred questionnaires were analyzed from the four groups of participants. Knowledge score was calculated for the different questions. To bring out the differences across the groups, Chi-square test was done with a post hoc Mann–Whitney U-test and Kruskal–Wallis test. P < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. RESULTS: The level of awareness about genetic eye diseases was better among undergraduate students, doctors, and paramedical staff compared to the general public (P < 0.001). The majority across all three groups had a positive attitude toward genetic testing and gene therapy. However, most of the participants across all groups were not aware of the genetic facilities available in our country. CONCLUSION: This study shows a positive attitude toward genetic medicine. However, there is a need to improve public awareness about genetic eye diseases and facilities available for genetic testing and gene therapy.

The Canadian province of Ontario provides full coverage for its residents (pop.14.8 M) for hospital-based diagnostic testing. Historical governance of the healthcare system and a legacy scheme of health technology assessment (HTA) and financing has led to a suboptimal approach of adopting advanced diagnostic technology (i.e. protein expression, cytogenetic, and molecular/genetic) for guiding therapeutic decisions. The aim of this research is to explore systemic barriers and provide guidance to improve patient and care provider experiences by reducing delays and inequity of access to testing, while benefitting laboratory innovators and maximizing system efficiency. A mixed-methods approach including literature review, semi-structured interviews, and a multi-stakeholder forum involving patient representatives (n = 1), laboratory leaders (n = 6), physicians (n = 5), Ministry personnel (n = 4), administrators (n = 3), extra-provincial experts, and researchers (n = 7), as well as pharmaceutical (n = 5) and diagnostic companies (n = 2). The forum considered evidence of good practices in adoption, implementation, and financing laboratory services and identified barriers as well as feasible options for improving advanced diagnostic testing in Ontario. Overarching challenges identified included: barriers to define what is needed; need for a clear approach to adoption; and the need for more oversight and coordination. Recommendations to address these included a shift to an anticipatory system of test adoption, creating a fit-for-purpose system of health technology management that consolidates existing evaluation processes, and modernizing the governance and financing of testing so that it is managed at a care-delivery level. The proposals for change in Ontario highlight the role that HTA, governance, and financing of health technology play along the continuum of a health technology life cycle within a healthcare system where decision-making is highly decentralized. Resource availability and capacity were not a concern – instead, solutions require higher levels of coordination and system integration along with innovative approaches to HTA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some genetic counselors (GCs) provide care in the inpatient setting. However, there is little literature on inpatient genetic counseling. The purpose of our study was to describe GC's experiences with the provision of genetic counseling services within inpatient care settings. Participants were recruited from respondents to a quantitative survey study on inpatient genetic counseling, which recruited GCs via the National Society of Genetic Counselors forum. GCs seeing at least five inpatients per year were invited to participate in semi‐structured interviews. The interview guide explored how and why their inpatient genetic counseling service started, workflow, and the perceived impact of the service. Interviews were transcribed, inductive analysis was used to develop a codebook, and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Twenty‐one inpatient genetic counselors participated in the study. Many participants worked primarily in outpatient roles with some inpatient duties (61.9%), while the rest worked primarily in inpatient roles (38.1%). Most participants have provided inpatient care for <2 years (66.7%). Many participants were involved in inpatient care across multiple specialties (66.7%), most frequently, pediatrics, neonatology, and neurology. Three themes were identified: (a) The convenience of inpatient genetic counseling leads to increased access to appropriate genetics care for medically complex patients and their inpatient healthcare providers, (b) the inpatient genetic counseling process and workflow is not standard and has multiple moving parts, and (c) genetic counselors are fulfilled by the diverse and unique opportunities of the inpatient care setting despite the emotional intensity of this environment. Participants described their inpatient care as valuable because it increases access to genetics services and adds genetics expertise to multidisciplinary inpatient teams. Overall, participants perceive inpatient genetic counseling as a way to bring genetics care directly to patients at a critical time point in their care, which benefits medically complex patients and their multidisciplinary inpatient team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Pakistani/British Pakistani community in England it is quite common for people to marry close cousin relatives, which can increase the chances of certain genetic problems in their children. Families in these situations often have little knowledge of genetics and encounter difficulties accessing genetic counselling services and culturally appropriate genetics information is needed to support these families. We describe the co-design of a prototype culturally sensitive smart phone app with the British Pakistani community, to improve understanding of genetics and genetic services.

The utilization of genetics in medical care has enhanced the utility of precision medicine and hence increased the need for clinical genetic services. These services have reduced the costs and expanded the availability of genetic testing, but their use is limited in certain populations. This study explores the access to clinical genetic services for Michigan patients referred to a genetics clinic on the western side of the state. Factors included the travel distance (miles), wait time for appointment (days from the referral date to the date of first appointment), population demographics, and cultural characteristics. A retrospective record review of all aged patients (n = 568) referred to a genetics clinic in 2018 demonstrated that all patients were insured (100%), of which majority were white-non-Hispanic (90.7%), more than half were < 10 years of age at referral (53.3%), and most of them kept their first appointment (93.5%). Our analysis showed that the wait time was associated with referral non-compliance, p < 0.01. Adjusting for all variables, for each additional day in wait time, patients had 1% increased risk of not seeking clinical genetic services (OR = 1.01, 90% CI [1.01, 1.02]). Policies to encourage genetic service utilization and improve equitable access to precision health are needed. An opportunity exists for strategies that broaden and add diverse populations to those receiving genetic services., (© 2024 National Society of Genetic Counselors.)

The delivery of genetic services in developing countries is faced with significant challenges, despite medical and technological advances globally. The Philippines, being an archipelago, faces even more challenges, with significant disparities in access to healthcare, and tertiary medical centers and specialists being concentrated in the major cities. The utilization of different networks for the integration of genetic services in the existing public health delivery system has been valuable. Using the well-established network of the national newborn screening program, genetic services have been successfully integrated into the delivery of healthcare, even at the grassroot level. Equitable access to healthcare, including genetic services, was highlighted and supported by the enactment of the Rare Disease Law in 2016. The support of the academe to assure the sustainability of services was evident in the establishment of a genetic counseling program to augment the work of a handful of clinical geneticists. Professional societies and support groups have been instrumental in identifying genetic conditions to be prioritized and lobbying for increased public awareness, leading to national programs and policies. This paper primarily discusses the value of networks in the delivery of genetic services, specifically newborn screening, programs for rare diseases, birth defects, and genetic counseling.

Purpose: Digital tools are increasingly incorporated into genetics practice to address challenges with the current model of care. Yet, genetics providers' perspectives on digital tool use are not well characterized., Methods: Genetics providers across Canada were recruited. Semistructured interviews were conducted to ascertain their perspectives on digital tool use and the clinical practice factors that might inform digital tool integration. A qualitative interpretive description approach was used for analysis., Results: Thirty-three genetics providers across 5 provinces were interviewed. Participants had favorable attitudes toward digital tool use. They were open to using digital tools in the pretest phase of the genetic testing pathway and for some posttest tasks or in a hybrid model of care. Participants expressed that digital tools could enhance efficiency and allow providers to spend more time practicing at the top of scope. Providers also described the need for careful consideration of the potential impact of digitalization on the clinician-patient dynamic, access to and equity of care, and unintended digital burden on providers., Conclusion: Genetics providers considered digital tools to represent a viable solution for improving access, efficiency, and quality of care in genetics practice. Successful use of digital tools in practice will require careful consideration of their potential unintended impacts., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Family history screening to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary cancers could be a powerful strategy to prevent cancer but is used inconsistently in primary care. The objective was to improve identification of women with at-risk family histories using a point-of-care family history screening tool administered on an electronic tablet device during well-woman appointments. A total of 288 women were invited to participate and 136 women (47.2%) completed the electronic family history screening tool. Significantly more women were identified and referred to the genetics department with the electronic family history screening tool than the standard-of-care paper questionnaire (11.8% versus 0.8%, P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of referred women who were evaluated by the genetic counselors, and no pathogenic variants were found with either family history screening method. Implementing innovative self-reporting tools may improve inherited cancer risk detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]