Genomics knowledge and attitudes among European public health professionals: Results of a cross-sectional survey

A qualitative study to evaluate the preparedness of community paediatricians for genomic medicine in England - ready for take-off?

Genomic medicine (GM) was mainstreamed across the National Health Service (NHS) in England in 2018. Non-genetics healthcare professionals can now incorporate genomic testing including whole genome sequencing (WGS) into their clinical practice. This study was conducted to evaluate the preparedness of community paediatricians (CPs) for GM. Semi-structured interviews, using a topic guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, were conducted with 17 CPs working in the NHS to explore issues related to preparedness and confidence. Data were analysed using thematic template analysis. The codebook included both inductive and deductive codes informed by the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour model (COM-B), an implementation theory to explain behaviour change. The majority of participants perceived a net benefit from GM in terms of improving clinical management and information provision for patients and families and were receptive to using GM in their clinical practice. However, there was wide variation across trusts in CP preparedness for genomic medicine for reasons including lack of time and resources, notably workforce support. Many also lacked confidence in the skills required to deliver GM, and did not see GM as a priority. Most participants felt that they had access to GM education, but the main challenge was finding the time to engage with it. Strategies related to fiscal measures, enablement, training and education could help to address these early obstacles. Our findings may be relevant to clinicians in other non-genetic specialties integrating GM into their clinical practice not only in the UK NHS but more globally.

Genetic Screening-Emerging Issues

In many countries, some form of genetic screening is offered to all or part of the population, either in the form of well-organized screening programs or in a less formalized way. Screening can be offered at different phases of life, such as preconception, prenatal, neonatal and later in life. Screening should only be offered if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Technical innovations in testing and treatment are driving changes in the field of prenatal and neonatal screening, where many jurisdictions have organized population-based screening programs. As a result, a greater number and wider range of conditions are being added to the programs, which can benefit couples' reproductive autonomy (preconception and prenatal screening) and improve early diagnosis to prevent irreversible health damage in children (neonatal screening) and in adults (cancer and cascade screening). While many developments in screening are technology-driven, citizens may also express a demand for innovation in screening, as was the case with non-invasive prenatal testing. Relatively new emerging issues for genetic screening, especially if testing is performed using DNA sequencing, relate to organization, data storage and interpretation, benefit-harm ratio and distributive justice, information provision and follow-up, all connected to acceptability in current healthcare systems.

Attitudes towards genetic testing: The role of genetic literacy, motivated cognition, and socio-demographic characteristics

Understanding reasons for why people choose to have or not to have a genetic test is essential given the ever-increasing use of genetic technologies in everyday life. The present study explored the multiple drivers of people's attitudes towards genetic testing. Using the International Genetic Literacy and Attitudes Survey (iGLAS), we collected data on: (1) willingness to undergo testing; (2) genetic literacy; (3) motivated cognition; and (4) demographic and cultural characteristics. The 37 variables were explored in the largest to-date sample of 4311 participants from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds. The results showed that 82% of participants were willing to undergo genetic testing for improved treatment; and over 73%-for research. The 35 predictor variables together explained only a small proportion of variance: 7%-in the willingness to test for Treatment; and 6%-for Research. The strongest predictors of willingness to undergo genetic testing were genetic knowledge and deterministic beliefs. Concerns about data misuse and about finding out unwanted health-related information were weakly negatively associated with willingness to undergo genetic testing. We also found some differences in factors linked to attitudes towards genetic testing across the countries included in this study. Our study demonstrates that decision-making regarding genetic testing is influenced by a large number of potentially interacting factors. Further research into these factors may help consumers to make decisions regarding genetic testing that are right for their specific circumstances.

Survey of Professionals of the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) towards Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

BACKGROUND

The increasing availability of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests (DTC-GTs) has great implications for public health (PH) and requires literate healthcare professionals to address the challenges they pose. We designed and conducted a survey to assess the state of knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of PH professionals members of the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) towards DTC-GTs.

METHODS

EUPHA members were invited to participate and fill in the survey. We performed multivariable logistic regression to evaluate associations between selected covariates and knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of healthcare professionals towards DTC-GT.

RESULTS

Three hundred and two professionals completed the survey, 66.9% of whom were not involved in genetics or genomics within their professional activities. Although 74.5% of respondents were aware that DTC-GTs could be purchased on the web, most of them reported a low level of awareness towards DTC-GTs applications and regulatory aspects. The majority did not approve the provision of DTC-GTs without consultation of a healthcare professional (91.4%), were doubtful about the test utility and validity (61%) and did not feel prepared to address citizens' questions (65.6%). Predictors of knowledge on DTC-GT were the involvement in genetics/genomics and receiving training during the studies (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.043). Predictors of attitudes were medical degree and knowledge about DTC-GTs (P = 0.006 and P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed a high level of awareness of DTC-GT web purchasing and a moderate to low level of awareness towards their applications. Despite the overall positive attitudes, PH professionals reported a high need for strengthening regulatory aspects of DTC-GTs provision process.