Increasing confidence and changing behaviors in primary care providers engaged in genetic counselling.

BackgroundScreening and counseling for genetic conditions is an increasingly important part of primary care practice, particularly given the paucity of genetic counselors in the United States. However, primary care physicians (PCPs) often have an inadequate understanding of evidence-based screening; communication approaches that encourage shared decision-making; ethical, legal, and social implication (ELSI) issues related to screening for genetic mutations; and the basics of clinical genetics. This study explored whether an interactive, web-based genetics curriculum directed at PCPs in non-academic primary care settings was superior at changing practice knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors when compared to a traditional educational approach, particularly when discussing common genetic conditions.MethodsOne hundred twenty one PCPs in California and Pennsylvania physician practices were randomized to either an Intervention Group (IG) or Control Group (CG). IG physicians completed a 6 h interactive web-based curriculum covering communication skills, basics of genetic testing, risk assessment, ELSI issues and practice behaviors. CG physicians were provided with a traditional approach to Continuing Medical Education (CME) (clinical review articles) offering equivalent information.ResultsPCPs in the Intervention Group showed greater increases in knowledge compared to the Control Group. Intervention PCPs were also more satisfied with the educational materials, and more confident in their genetics knowledge and skills compared to those receiving traditional CME materials. Intervention PCPs felt that the web-based curriculum covered medical management, genetics, and ELSI issues significantly better than did the Control Group, and in comparison with traditional curricula. The Intervention Group felt the online tools offered several advantages, and engaged in better shared decision making with standardized patients, however, there was no difference in behavior change between groups with regard to increases in ELSI discussions between PCPs and patients.ConclusionWhile our intervention was deemed more enjoyable, demonstrated significant factual learning and retention, and increased shared decision making practices, there were few differences in behavior changes around ELSI discussions. Unfortunately, barriers to implementing behavior change in clinical genetics is not unique to our intervention. Perhaps the missing element is that busy physicians need systems-level support to engage in meaningful discussions around genetics issues. The next step in promoting active engagement between doctors and patients may be to put into place the tools needed for PCPs to easily access the materials they need at the point-of-care to engage in joint discussions around clinical genetics

Attitudes and Practices Among Internists Concerning Genetic Testing

Many questions remain concerning whether, when, and how physicians order genetic tests, and what factors are involved in their decisions. We surveyed 220 internists from two academic medical centers about their utilization of genetic testing. Rates of genetic utilizations varied widely by disease. Respondents were most likely to have ordered tests for Factor V Leiden (16.8 %), followed by Breast/Ovarian Cancer (15.0 %). In the past 6 months, 65 % had counseled patients on genetic issues, 44 % had ordered genetic tests, 38.5 % had referred patients to a genetic counselor or geneticist, and 27.5 % had received ads from commercial labs for genetic testing. Only 4.5 % had tried to hide or disguise genetic information, and <2 % have had patients report genetic discrimination. Only 53.4 % knew of a geneticist/genetic counselor to whom to refer patients. Most rated their knowledge as very/somewhat poor concerning genetics (73.7 %) and guidelines for genetic testing (87.1 %). Most felt needs for more training on when to order tests (79 %), and how to counsel patients (82 %), interpret results (77.3 %), and maintain privacy (80.6 %). Physicians were more likely to have ordered a genetic test if patients inquired about genetic testing (p  < .001), and if physicians had a geneticist/genetic counselor to whom to refer patients (p  < .002), had referred patients to a geneticist/genetic counselor in the past 6 months, had more comfort counseling patients about testing (p  < .019), counseled patients about genetics, larger practices (p  < .032), fewer African‐American patients (p  < .027), and patients who had reported genetic discrimination (p  < .044). In a multiple logistic regression, ordering a genetic test was associated with patients inquiring about testing, having referred patients to a geneticist/genetic counselor and knowing how to order tests. These data suggest that physicians recognize their knowledge deficits, and are interested in training. These findings have important implications for future medical practice, research, and education

Which Lynch syndrome screening programs could be implemented in the "real world"? A systematic review of economic evaluations

Purpose: Lynch syndrome (LS) screening can significantly reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in mutation carriers. Our aim was to identify cost-effective LS screening programs that can be implemented in the "real world."Methods: We performed a systematic review of full economic evaluations of genetic screening for LS in different target populations; health outcomes were estimated in life-years gained or quality-adjusted life-years.Results: Overall, 20 studies were included in the systematic review. Based on the study populations, we identified six categories of LS screening program: colorectal cancer (CRC)-based, endometrial cancer-based, general population-based, LS family registry-based, cascade testing-based, and genetics clinic-based screening programs. We performed an in-depth analysis of CRC-based LS programs, classifying them into three additional subcategories: universal, age-targeted, and selective. In five studies, universal programs based on immunohistochemistry, either alone or in combination with the BRAF test, were cost-effective compared with no screening, while in two studies age-targeted programs with a cutoff of 70 years were cost-effective when compared with age-targeted programs with lower age thresholds. Conclusion: Universal or <70 years-age-targeted CRC-based LS screening programs are cost-effective and should be implemented in the "real world

Identification of Organisational Models for the Provision of Predictive Genomic Applications

When evaluating proper delivery models of a genetic service, it is important to take into consideration the healthcare system and the genetic test provided within a specific programme. New delivery models should promote the integration of genetics into all medical specialties through the collaboration among different healthcare professionals and the redistribution of professional roles. The successful implementation of genomic applications into practice must go through the implementation of specific national policies, adequate funding along with increase of professional education in genomics medicine. To that effect, Clinical Decision Support Systems can effectively increase the ability of physicians to assess genetic risk and reduce the possibility of misdiagnosis to improve healthcare. A thorough analysis to understand if genomic information can be used to deliver better health outcomes for patients and populations must be carried out before integrating it into healthcare systems. For this purpose, a conceptual framework of outcomes-based healthcare systems to address whether genomic information can actually deliver value is also presented in this chapter