Translating translational medicine into global health equity: What is needed?

Defining equity, its determinants, and the foundations of equity science

Advancing equity as a priority is increasingly declared in response to decades of evidence showing the association between poorer health outcomes and the unfair distribution of resources, power, and wealth across all levels of society. Quandries present, however, through incongruence, vagueness and disparate interpretations of the meaning of equity dilute and fragment efforts across research, policy and practice. Progress on reducing health inequities is, in this context, unsurprisingly irresolute. In this article, we make a case for equity science that reimagines the ways in which we (as researchers, as systems leaders, as teachers and mentors, and as citizens in society) engage in this work. We offer a definition of equity, its determinants, and the paradigmatic foundations of equity science, including the assumptions, values, and processes., and methods of this science. We argue for an equity science that can more meaningfully promote coherent alignment between intention, knowledge and action within and beyond the health sciences to spark a more equitable future.

An innovative framework to determine the implementation level of personalized medicine: A systematic review

Background

Personalized medicine (PM) is now the new frontier in patient care. The application of this new paradigm extends to various pathologies and different patient care phases, such as diagnosis and treatment. Translating biotechnological advances to clinical routine means adapting health services at all levels is necessary.

Purpose

This article aims to identify the elements for devising a framework that will allow the level of PM implementation in the country under study to be quantitatively and qualitatively assessed and that can be used as a guideline for future implementation plans.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The research question was: What are the domains for determining the level of implementation of PM at the national level? The domains for assessing the degree of PM implementation, which would form the framework, were established.

Results

19 full-text studies that met the inclusion criteria were peer-selected in the systematic review. From all the studies that were included, 37 elements-encompassed in 11 domains-were extracted for determining the degree of PM implementation. These domains and their constituent elements comprise the qualitative and quantitative assessment framework presented herein. Each of the elements can be assessed individually. On the other hand, the domains were standardized to all have the same weight in an overall assessment.

Conclusions

A framework has been developed that takes a multi-factorial approach to determine the degree of implementation of PM at the national level. This framework could also be used to rank countries and their implementation strategies according to the score they receive in the application of the latter. It could also be used as a guide for developing future national PM implementation strategies.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022338611, Identifier: CRD42022338611.

Exploring Genetic Numeracy Skills in a Sample of U.S. University Students

Misconceptions concerning numerical genetic risk exist even within educated populations. To more fully characterize and understand the extent of these risk misunderstandings, which have large potential impact on clinical care, we analyzed the responses from 2,576 students enrolled at 2 Southwestern universities using the PGRID tool, a 138-item web-based survey comprising measures of understanding of genetics, genetic disease, and genetic risk. The primary purpose of this study was to characterize the intersection of risk perception and knowledge, termed genetic numeracy (GN). Additionally, we identify sociodemographic factors that might shape varying levels of GN skills within the study sample and explore the impact of GN on genetic testing intentions using both the Marascuilo procedure and logistic regression analysis. Despite having some college coursework or at least one college degree, most respondents lacked high-level aptitude in understanding genetic inheritance risk, especially with respect to recessive disorders. Prior education about genetics and biology, as well as exposure to biomedical models of genetics, was associated with higher GN levels; exposure to popular media models of genetics was inversely associated with higher GN levels. Differing GN levels affects genetic testing intentions. GN will become more relevant as genetic testing is increasingly incorporated into general clinical care.

Focusing attention on ancestral diversity within genomics research: a potential means for promoting equity in the provision of genomics based healthcare services in developing countries

Although we are well into the second decade after the completion of the International Human Genome Project, genomic research has failed to fully represent the diverse ancestry of global populations. The resultant healthcare challenges faced by populations underrepresented in genomic research needs to be tackled by the global scientific community. In this paper, we address several major factors which have contributed to the existing health disparity and put forward a combination of scientific and political interventions needed to bring about a change that will ensure all global populations benefit equally from the advances made in genomic medicine and research.