Anticipating the primary care role in genomic medicine: expectations of genetics health professionals

The case for integrating genetic counselors into primary care: A paradigm shift for our profession

The integration of genetic counselors (GCs) into primary care represents an opportunity for a transformative shift in healthcare delivery, bridging the gap between the historical medical genetics delivery model and the increasing need for genetic services. This paradigm aligns the holistic ethos of primary care with the specialized expertise of genetic counseling and frontline access to preventive care, addressing critical barriers in genetic services. Current genetic service delivery models, concentrated in tertiary care settings, face limitations, including access disparities, fragmented care, and inefficiencies that disproportionately affect underserved populations. Embedding GCs within primary care leverages GCs' unique skills to enhance personalized healthcare delivery, improve risk assessment, and facilitate the implementation of precision medicine. GCs in primary care can streamline referrals, manage routine genetic concerns, and provide genetic continuity of care across the patient's lifespan. This integration ensures that genetic insights are contextualized within patients' day-to-day healthcare, fostering equitable and efficient access to genomic medicine. We explore the potential impact of primary care genetic counselors (PCGCs) on healthcare systems, emphasizing the alignment of their scope of practice with primary care principles such as accessibility, comprehensiveness, and continuity. By addressing evolving patient needs and collaborating with primary care teams, PCGCs can increase patient access, reduce system inefficiencies, alleviate pressures on specialty genetics services, and improve health equity. This paper advocates for a collaborative model where GCs are embedded within primary care, enabling proactive, prevention-focused interventions and enhancing patient outcomes. By integrating genetics into primary care settings, we reimagine genetic healthcare delivery to maximize the benefits of genomic medicine for all individuals. This paradigm shift underscores the urgency of addressing systemic barriers and advancing the role of GCs in healthcare to improve patient and clinician experiences, better population health, and achieve greater health equity.

Utility of eConsult to enhance delivery of cancer genetic services and identify hereditary cancer knowledge gaps in primary care

Purpose

This study analyzed the utility of electronic consultation (eConsult) for hereditary cancer (HC) and aimed to identify primary care practitioner (PCP) knowledge gaps.

Methods

A retrospective mixed-methods study was used to evaluate 200 randomly selected PCP eConsult cases submitted to cancer genetics specialists in Ontario, Canada.

Results

In 65% (129/200) of eConsults, PCPs indicated they received clear advice for a new course of action. In 34% (68/200), referral was contemplated but now avoided. In 8% (16/200), referral was advised when not originally planned. For 89% (177/200), eConsult was considered valuable. For most, (63%, 125/200), PCPs agreed eConsult addressed a clinical problem that should be incorporated into continuing medical education. PCPs' questions were mainly about cancer screening (114), genetic testing (107), or genetics referral (76). Geneticist recommendations were mainly about cancer screening (154), genetics referral (104), and the High-Risk Ontario Breast Cancer Screening Program (41). PCP knowledge gaps identified included cancer screening guidelines (112), genetics referral criteria (100), High-Risk Ontario Breast Cancer Screening Program screening criteria (71), and understanding of genetics principles (237).

Conclusion

eConsult is an effective tool for PCP access to HC specialists. Identifiable knowledge gaps emerge that could be used to enhance continuing medical education and drive innovative HC service delivery.

Genetic literacy among primary care physicians in a resource-constrained setting

BACKGROUND

Genetic literacy among primary healthcare providers is crucial for appropriate patient care with the advances in genetic and genomic medicine. Studies from high-income countries highlight the lack of knowledge in genetics and the need to develop curricula for continuing professional development of non-geneticists. Scarce data is available from resource-constrained countries in Middle East and North Africa. Lebanon is a small country in this region characterized by high rates of consanguinity and genetic disorders like several surrounding countries, such as Jordan, Syria, and Turkey.

METHODS

The primary aim of this study assessed the genetic literacy, self-perceived and actual knowledge as well as practices among primary care providers in Lebanon. The secondary aim identified their educational needs and proposed evidence-based continuing education programs. A cross-sectional survey-based study, using a self-administered questionnaire, was conducted targeting physicians from Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Pediatrics. The questionnaire was divided into five sections: demographics, familiarity with genetic tests, self-reported and actual knowledge, genetic practices, and educational needs. Statistics were performed using SPSS v24. The Chi-square test was used for independent variables. Differences between mean scores were measured using paired sample t-tests for groups of two levels and one-way ANOVA for more than two. Multiple linear regression was used to study the variables associated with the knowledge score while controlling for other variables.

RESULTS

The survey included 123 physicians. They were mostly familiar with karyotype as first-tier genetic test. Although 38% perceived their knowledge as good, only 6% scored as such in knowledge assessment. A better knowledge score was observed in academic institutions as well as in urban settings (p<0.05). One third never ordered any genetic testing, mostly due to poor knowledge. Almost all (98%) were ready to attend continuing professional development sessions in genetics.

CONCLUSION

Our findings show the need to improve genetic literacy among healthcare frontliners, focusing on remote regions and nonacademic centers in Lebanon, a model for other resource-constrained country in the Middle East and North Africa region. This study advances recommendations for evidence-based genetic continuing education programs and highlighted the role of that the few genetic specialists can play in their successful implementation.

Residential Locale Is Associated with Disparities in Genetic Testing-Related Outcomes Among BRCA1/2-Positive Women

BACKGROUND

While research on hereditary genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations continues to emerge, there remain unanswered questions regarding access to testing and cancer-related care. Our study determined the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing provider and related outcomes among US women with BRCA1/2 genetic mutations.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-three BRCA1/2-positive women from vulnerable health backgrounds were recruited via private national Facebook BRCA1/2-oriented support groups and completed an online survey. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression for the associations between race/ethnicity, residential locale, and genetic testing-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Women ranged in age (18-75, M = 39.5, SD = 10.7), and most were non-Hispanic white (66.3%) and lived in a suburban locale (54.9%). Women living in suburban areas were significantly less likely (aOR, .369, 95% CI, .177-.771) to receive behavioral referrals after genetic testing compared to those living in an urban locale. Women living in rural areas and suburban areas were 4.72 times more likely (95% CI, 1.48-15.1, p = .009) and 2.61 times more likely (95% CI, 1.05-6.48, p = .038), respectively, to receive genetic testing from a primary care provider versus private genetic testing office/hospital compared to women in urban locales. Associations between race/ethnicity and genetic testing outcomes were not statistically significant. Residential locale did not predict the odds of undergoing surgery for risk reduction or surveillance for early detection.

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies disparities in genetic testing resources among women living in suburban and rural areas. These findings can be used to inform future care, research, and community resources that may impact services relating to genetic testing within these locales.

Clinicians' Perceptions towards Precision Medicine Tools for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Stratification in South Africa

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in South Africa. Risk stratification is the preferred approach to disease prevention, but identifying patients at high risk for CVD remains challenging. Assessing genetic risk could improve stratification and inform a clinically relevant precision medicine (PM) approach. Clinicians are critical to PM adoption, thus, this study explores practicing clinicians’ perceptions of PM-based CVD risk stratification in South Africa’s public health setting. Practicing clinicians (n = 109) at four teaching hospitals in Johannesburg, South Africa, completed an electronic self-administered survey. The effect of demographic and professional characteristics on PM-based CVD risk stratification perceptions was assessed. Fewer than 25% of respondents used clinical genetic testing, and 14% had formal genetics training. 78% had a low mean knowledge score, with higher scores associated with genetic training (p < 0.0005) and research involvement (p < 0.05). Despite limited knowledge and resources, 84% perceived PM approaches positively. 57% felt confident in applying the PM-based approach, with those already undertaking CVD risk stratification more confident (p < 0.001). High cost and limited access to genetics services are key barriers. Integrating genetic information into established clinical tools will likely increase confidence in using PM approaches. Addressing the genetics training gap and investment into the country’s genomics capacity is needed to advance PM in South Africa.

Primary Care Providers' Use of Genetic Services in the Southeast United States: Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies

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.