Search

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists' perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours. Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education. Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling. Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet

Researchers and research participants increasingly support returning clinically actionable genetic research findings to participants, but researchers may lack the skills and resources to do so. In response, a genetic counsellor-led program to facilitate the return of clinically actionable findings to research participants was developed to fill the identified gap in research practice and meet Australian research guidelines. A steering committee of experts reviewed relevant published literature and liaised with researchers, research participants and clinicians to determine the scope of the program, as well as the structure, protocols and infrastructure. A program called My Research Results (MyRR) was developed, staffed by genetic counsellors with input from the steering committee, infrastructure services and a genomic advisory committee. MyRR is available to Human Research Ethics Committee approved studies Australia-wide and comprises genetic counselling services to notify research participants of clinically actionable research findings, support for researchers with developing an ethical strategy for managing research findings and an online information platform. The results notification strategy is an evidence-based two-step model, which has been successfully used in other Australian studies. MyRR is a translational program supporting researchers and research participants to access clinically actionable research findings.

Background: Consumer genomic testing for nutrition and wellness, (nutritional genomics), is becoming increasingly popular. Concurrently, health-care practitioners (HPs) working in private practice (including doctors interested in integrative medicine, private genetic counsellors, pharmacists, dieticians, naturopaths and nutritionists) are involved as test facilitators or interpreters. Objective: To explore Australian consumers’ and HPs’ experiences with nutrigenomic testing. Method: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using predominantly purposive sampling. The two data sets were analysed individually, then combined, using a constant comparative, thematic approach. Results: Overall, 45 interviews were conducted with consumers (n = 18) and HPs (n = 27). Many of the consumer interviewees experienced chronic ill-health. Nutrigenomic testing was perceived as empowering and a source of hope for answers. While most made changes to their diet/supplements post-test, self-reported health improvements were small. A positive relationship with their HP appeared to minimize disappointment. HPs’ adoption and views of nutrigenomic testing varied. Those enthusiastic about testing saw the possibilities it could offer. However, many felt nutrigenomic testing was not the only ‘tool’ to utilize when offering health care. Discussion: This research highlights the important role HPs play in consumers’ experiences of nutrigenomics. The varied practice suggests relevant HPs require upskilling in this area to at least support their patients/clients, even if nutrigenomic testing is not part of their practice. Patient or public contribution: Advisory group included patient/public group representatives who informed study design; focus group participants gave feedback on the survey from which consumer interviewees were sourced. This informed the HP data set design. Interviewees from HP data set assisted with snowball sampling.

Background: Australian researchers increasingly support returning clinically actionable genetic research findings to participants, but may lack the skills and resources to do so. Aim(s): Develop a program to support researchers and facilitate the return of clinically actionable research findings to participants. Method(s): The My Research Results (MyRR) program has been developed by a steering committee of clinicians, researchers, genetic educators and consumers. MyRR supports researchers to return clinically actionable research findings to participants. MyRRis staffed by genetic counsellors and available to researchers Australia-wide. Participants are notified of findings by letter, with a follow-up phone call from a genetic counsellor. The MyRR experience of returning findings from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study and the ASPREE Study is reported. Result(s): Twenty-three individuals across the two studies were notified of clinically actionable findings from February to May 2021. Notification letters were sent to probands (n = 21) or, if deceased, the nominated next-of-kin (n = 2). MyRR genetic counsellors successfully contacted 21 individuals (12 women and nine men) regarding pathogenic variants in BRCA1 (n = 6), BRCA2 (n = 13), MSH6 (n = 1) and PMS2 (n = 1). The average age of notified probands was 81 years. Findings were disclosed to 20 individuals, one declined to receive the findings. Thirteen probands expressed an intention to attend a clinical genetics service for confirmatory testing and risk management advice. Five individuals were already aware of the findings. Conclusion(s): MyRR is a translational program promoting and facilitating access to clinically actionable genetic research findings, filling an important gap for Australian research studies and delivering health benefits to research participants.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Genomics is moving rapidly into mainstream medicine through clinical genomic testing and consumer-initiated online DNA testing. The aim of this study was to identify Australian general practitioners' (GPs') views on genomics, impact on practice and educational needs to inform continuing education. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, with constant comparative inductive analysis and governance from a national taskforce. RESULTS: Twenty-eight GPs (43% female) were interviewed; 71% worked in a metropolitan workplace. Most initially reported little experience with genetic/genomic tests but, when prompted, recognised encountering genomics, mainly non-invasive prenatal and single-gene tests. Many GPs referred patients for cancer screening to genetic services or specialists. GPs reported needing continuing education and resources, with preferences underpinned by relevance to practice. DISCUSSION: GPs are integrating genomic testing into care, mainly through prenatal screening, and anticipate further impact. They want diverse and context-dependent education but are unaware of some available resources, such as The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' Genomics in general practice guideline.

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.

Increasingly, consumers have been able to seek DNA testing online to explore their personal genetic information. This increased access to a range of genomic tests has raised concerns among health professionals tasked with providing guidance and support to patients requiring genetic/genomic testing. Individuals will seek genomic testing for a range of purposes; equally, the medical marketplace offers a range of different test types. The Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) published their first statement on Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing (2012 PS02). This is a revised statement, which considers developments in the field of online DNA testing, including rapid technological changes, diversity of applications and decreasing costs of testing. It draws from the first empirical nationwide study (Genioz - Genomics: National Insights of Australians) and insights from consumers with experience of this technology. The rapid adoption of these tests and the broad range of potential consequences have informed perspectives within this statement. It is the position of the HGSA that both individuals/consumers and health care professionals/providers should be supported to make informed choices about online DNA testing. This means adequate and ongoing education and resources should be available for individuals/consumers and health care professionals/providers before, during and after testing. Health care professionals/providers should be appropriately trained, have relevant experience and should be able to demonstrate (or provide evidence of) a current certification in their field of practice. This statement was ratified at the 2018 HGSA Council Meeting and was recently reviewed in 2019 for consistency with other HGSA position statements.

AbstractIncreasingly, consumers have been able to seek DNA testing online to explore their personal genetic information. This increased access to a range of genomic tests has raised concerns among health professionals tasked with providing guidance and support to patients requiring genetic/genomic testing. Individuals will seek genomic testing for a range of purposes; equally, the medical marketplace offers a range of different test types. The Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) published their first statement on Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing (2012 PS02). This is a revised statement, which considers developments in the field of online DNA testing, including rapid technological changes, diversity of applications and decreasing costs of testing. It draws from the first empirical nationwide study (Genioz – Genomics: National Insights of Australians) and insights from consumers with experience of this technology. The rapid adoption of these tests and the broad range of potential consequences have informed perspectives within this statement. It is the position of the HGSA that both individuals/consumers and health care professionals/providers should be supported to make informed choices about online DNA testing. This means adequate and ongoing education and resources should be available for individuals/consumers and health care professionals/providers before, during and after testing. Health care professionals/providers should be appropriately trained, have relevant experience and should be able to demonstrate (or provide evidence of) a current certification in their field of practice. This statement was ratified at the 2018 HGSA Council Meeting and was recently reviewed in 2019 for consistency with other HGSA position statements.

Facilitating informed decision-making regarding genetic testing is a core component of genetic counseling practice. Internationally, genetic testing is shifting toward gene panels and genomic testing, including whole exome and whole genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield and cost-effectiveness. This study explored genetics practitioners’ current experience with panels and genomic tests and the associated evolution of genetic counseling practice. Genetics practitioners with genomic testing experience, were purposively invited to participate in a semi-structured telephone interview and to snowball the invitation to colleagues. Interviews conducted with participants residing in Australia (n = 9) and the UK (n = 5) were transcribed and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Three themes emerged: (a) Role delineation: current roles, future roles, and the influence of increasing complexity; (b) The evolving spectrum of practice: blurred boundaries between research and clinical services; impact on facilitation of informed consent; and return of results strategies; and (c) Policy and governance needs: equality of access; achieving consistent variant interpretation, reporting, and responsibility for review; managing incidental findings; and professional regulation for Australian genetic counselors. These exploratory data highlight that genetic counseling practice and the essential role of facilitating informed consent are evolving but remain patient-centered, with core skills underpinning practitioners’ capacity to adapt.

Targeted genomic education and training of professionals have been identified as core components of strategies and implementation plans for the use of genomics in health care systems. Education needs to be effective and support the sustained and appropriate use of genomics in health care. Evaluation of education programs to identify effectiveness is challenging. Furthermore, those responsible for development and delivery are not necessarily trained in education and/or evaluation. Program logic models have been used to support the development and evaluation of education programs by articulating a logical explanation as to how a program intends to produce the desired outcomes. These are highly relevant to genomic education programs, but do not appear to have been widely used to date. To assist those developing and evaluating genomic education programs, and as a first step towards enabling identification of effective genomic education approaches, we developed a consensus program logic model for genomic education. We drew on existing literature and a co-design process with 24 international genomic education and evaluation experts to develop the model. The general applicability of the model to the development of programs was tested by program convenors across four diverse settings. Conveners reported on the utility and relevance of the logic model across development, delivery and evaluation. As a whole, their feedback suggests that the model is flexible and adaptive across university award programs, competency development and continuing professional development activities. We discuss this program logic model as a potential best practice mechanism for developing genomic education, and to support development of an evaluation framework and consistent standards to evaluate and report genomic education program outcomes and impacts.

Personal genomic tests (PGTs) for multiple purposes are marketed to ostensibly healthy people in Australia. These tests are generally marketed and purchased online commercially or can be ordered through a health professional. There has been minimal engagement with Australians about their interest in and experience with ordering a PGT. As part of a multistage, interdisciplinary project, an online survey (Stage 2 of the Genioz study) was available from May 2016 to May 2017. In total, 3253 respondents attempted the survey, with 2395 completed Australian responses from people with and without experience of having a PGT: 72% were female; 59% of the whole sample were undertaking/or had a university education; and, overall, age ranged from 18—over 80. A total of 571 respondents reported having had a genetic test, 373 of these classifiable as a PGT. A bivariate analysis suggests people who have undergone PGT in our sample were: women aged 25 and over; or in a high socioeconomic group, or have a personal or family diagnosis of a genetic condition (P ≤ 0.03). After a multivariate analysis, socioeconomic status and a genetic condition in the family were not of significance. The most common types of PGT reported were for carrier status and ancestry. Findings suggest greater awareness of, and an increasing demand for non-health related PGT in Australia. To support both consumers and health care professionals with understanding PGT results, there is a need for appropriate support and resources.

Despite the advancements in the production and accessibility of videos and animations, a gap exists between their potential for science teaching and their actual use in the classroom. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate an approach to boost chemistry and biology teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and their confidence regarding the use of videos and animations in class, which are required for their effective implementation. Twelve experienced high-school chemistry and biology teachers participated in a professional development workshop including biochemistry and technological-pedagogical lectures along with video-editing instruction and practice. Teachers were provided with digital videos including high-resolution scientifically based animations and were encouraged to edit them based on their pedagogical experience and the needs of their class. We investigated how the workshop affected teachers' TPACK-confidence and TPACK. TPACK-confidence was assessed by pre- and post-workshop questionnaires and open-ended feedback questionnaires. TPACK was assessed by analyses of the edited digital videos and pedagogical considerations submitted by the teachers. It was found that teachers' TPACK-confidence was significantly higher following the workshop. There was also a development in the teachers' TPACK. They were able to recommend to use digital videos in a variety of classroom situations based on the technological pedagogical knowledge (e.g., as an opening to a new topic) and their TPACK (e.g., to visualize complex biochemical processes). We also found a development in their video-editing skills and their knowledge of how to use this technology effectively in biochemistry lessons. Results indicate that training teachers in using technological tools while providing them with relevant Content Knowledge and TPACK, and relying on their pre-existing Pedagogical Content Knowledge may assist them develop their TPACK and TPACK-confidence. This m

Personal genome screening (PGenS) is increasingly being offered as a screen for future health management, and to identify carrier status pertinent to reproductive decision-making. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the experience of individuals who undertook PGenS through the 2014 Sydney “Understand Your Genome (UYG)” event and a 2015 offer of PGenS by Australian biotechnology company Life Letters (LL). Eligible individuals were invited to participate by their clinical geneticist (UYG), or email from Director of LL. Semi-structured telephone interviews with 17 individuals were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified and analyzed by two coders using thematic analysis with an inductive approach. Nine participants had genetic/genomics expertise and eight were well-informed health and business professionals. Individual participant PGenS results included: an autosomal dominant condition not previously clinically identified (n = 1); carrier status for recessive condition(s) (n = 8); a number of disease-causing variants associated with an increased susceptibility to an inherited disorder (n = 7); variants of uncertain significance (n = 5); and a few pharmacogenomically-relevant variants (n = 4). The majority of participants described the importance of pre-test genetic counseling, information and/or consent (n = 12). Some barriers to uptake were identified, including scepticism by GPs (n = 6), colleagues (n = 3), and family members (n = 2), as well as privacy concerns (n = 4). Those without genetic/genomics expertise were mostly motivated to have testing by curiosity or interest in personal health (6/8), one seeking a diagnosis for an inherited medical condition and another for future health management. For many with genetic/genomics experience, the motivation was professional interest (8/9) and/or curiosity (5/9), without concern for personal health risk (4/9). On reflection, despite this initial motivation by the latter, the test result had unanticipated pe

Personal genomic testing using direct-to-consumer and consumer-directed models, with or without involvement of healthcare providers, is increasing internationally, including in Australia. This study forms a sub-set of the Genioz study – Genomics: National Insights of Australians. We aimed to explore Australians’ experiences with these types of tests, especially online DNA tests, and their views regarding whom they would seek support from around understanding test results. The study used a mixed methods approach, employing an exploratory quantitative online survey and follow-up qualitative semi-structured interviews. Between May 2016 and May 2017, 2841 Australians responded to the survey. Interviews were conducted with 63 purposively sampled respondents, including 45 who had a genetic test and 18 who had not. Of 571 respondents who had any type of genetic test, 322 had a personal genomic test using criteria defined by the researchers. Testing for ancestry/genealogy was the most common, reported by 267 participants, reflecting the increased advertising of these tests in Australia. Some respondents described downloading their raw data for further interpretation through third party websites for genealogical as well as health related information. Carrier testing, testing for serious and preventable conditions and nutrition and/or wellness were the most common health related tests reported by respondents. Participants generally preferred to seek support from general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists with relevant expertise and independent genetics specialists, although another important preference for non-health information was online forums and networks. There was less preference for seeking support from employees associated with the testing companies. Generally, of those who had a health related PGT, the most common actions were seeking medical advice or doing nothing with the information, while more of those who had a personal genomic test for nutrition and/or w

Personal genomic testing provides healthy individuals with access to information about their genetic makeup for purposes including ancestry, paternity, sporting ability and health. Such tests are available commercially and globally, with accessibility expected to continue to grow, including in Australia; yet little is known of the views/expectations of Australians. Focus groups were conducted within a multi-stage, cross-disciplinary project (Genioz) to explore this. In mid-2015, 56 members of the public participated in seven focus groups, allocated into three age groups: 18–24, 25–49, and ≥50 years. Three researchers coded transcripts independently and generated themes. Awareness of personal genomic testing was low, but most could deduce what “personal genomics” might entail. Very few had heard of the term “direct-to-consumer” testing, which has implications for organisations developing information to support individuals in their decision-making. Participants’ understanding of genetics was varied and drawn from several sources. There were diverse perceptions of the relative influence of genetics and environment on health, mental health, behavior, talent, or personality. Views about having a personal genomic test were mixed, with greater interest in health-related tests if they believed there was a reason for doing so. However, many expressed scepticisms about the types of tests available, and how the information might be used; concerns were also raised about privacy and the potential for discrimination. These exploratory findings inform subsequent stages of the Genioz study, thereby contributing to strategies of supporting Australians to understand and make meaningful and well-considered decisions about the benefits, harms, and implications of personal genomic tests.

This paper uses consumer health informatics as a framework toexplore whether and how direct-to-consumer personal genomictesting can be regarded as a form of information which assistsconsumers to manage their health. It presents findings fromqualitative content analysis of web sites that offer testingservices, and of transcripts from focus groups conducted aspart a study of the Australian public’s expectations of personalgenomics. Content analysis showed that service offerings havesome features of consumer health information but lackconsistency. Focus group participants were mostly unfamiliarwith the specifics of test reports and related informationservices. Some of their ideas about aids to knowledge were inline with the benefits described on provider web sites, but someexpectations were inflated. People were ambivalent aboutwhether these services would address consumers’ health needs,interests and contexts and whether they would supportconsumers’ health self-management decisions and outcomes.There is scope for consumer health informatics approaches torefine the usage and the utility of direct-to-consumer personalgenomic testing. Further research may focus on how uptake isaffected by consumers’ health literacy or by services’engagement with consumers about what they really want.

This paper uses consumer health informatics as a framework to explore whether and how direct-to-consumerpersonal genomic testing can be regarded as a form of information which assists consumers to manage their health. It presents findings from qualitative content analysis of web sites that offer testing services, and of transcripts from focus groups conducted as part a study of the Australian public's expectations of personal genomics. Content analysis showed that service offerings have some features of consumer health information but lack consistency. Focus group participants were mostly unfamiliar with the specifics of test reports and related information services. Some of their ideas about AIDS to knowledge were in line with the benefits described on provider web sites, but some expectations were inflated. People were ambivalent about whether these services would address consumers' health needs, interests and contexts and whether they would support consumers' health self management decisions and outcomes. There is scope for consumer health informatics approaches to refine the usage and the utility of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Further research may focus on how uptake is affected by consumers' health literacy or by services' engagement with consumers about what they really want.