1
|
Lauretta ML, Jarmolowicz A, Amor DJ, Best S, Morgan AT. An Investigation of Barriers and Enablers for Genetics in Speech-Language Pathology Explored Through a Case Study of Childhood Apraxia of Speech. JOURNAL OF SPEECH, LANGUAGE, AND HEARING RESEARCH : JSLHR 2023:1-15. [PMID: 37713535 DOI: 10.1044/2023_jslhr-22-00714] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/17/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Advancements in genetic testing and analysis have allowed improved identification of the genetic basis of childhood apraxia of speech, a rare speech presentation. This study aimed to understand speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') consideration of incorporation of genetics in clinical practice using a theory-informed qualitative approach. METHOD Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 pediatric SLPs using a behavior change theory (Theoretical Domains Framework [TDF]) within a case study describing a child with complex co-occurring features, including childhood apraxia of speech. Interviews focused on three stages of the patient journey (prereferral, referral, and postreferral). Interviews were analyzed to identify barriers and enablers to considering incorporation of genetics in current clinical practice. Barriers and enablers were grouped and mapped onto a contextually relevant TDF-coded analysis framework. RESULTS Barriers were identified across several TDF domains, through all stages of the patient journey. Lack of confidence, relevance, and level of experience were most common prereferral, and connection to and awareness of genetics services and contextual factors were barriers in the referral stage. Perception of professional role, knowledge, and beliefs about effects on families were barriers postreferral. Associated enablers were also identified, including seeing value in genetic diagnosis, support from other health care professionals, supervision, and relationships with genetics services. CONCLUSIONS Results of this qualitative study highlight barriers and enablers to incorporating genetics into speech-language pathology clinical practice. These findings will assist in the development of theory-informed implementation strategies to support SLPs into the future. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24112800.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anna Jarmolowicz
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - David J Amor
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Angela T Morgan
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Taylor N, McKay S, Long JC, Gaff C, North K, Braithwaite J, Francis JJ, Best S. Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice. Implement Sci 2023; 18:29. [PMID: 37475088 PMCID: PMC10360252 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-023-01284-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Disentangling the interplay between experience-based intuition and theory-informed implementation is crucial for identifying the direct contribution theory can make for generating behaviour changes needed for successful evidence translation. In the context of 'clinicogenomics', a complex and rapidly evolving field demanding swift practice change, we aimed to (a) describe a combined clinician intuition- and theory-driven method for identifying determinants of and strategies for implementing clinicogenomics, and (b) articulate a structured approach to standardise hypothesised behavioural pathways and make potential underlying theory explicit. METHODS Interview data from 16 non-genetic medical specialists using genomics in practice identified three target behaviour areas across the testing process: (1) identifying patients, (2) test ordering and reporting, (3) communicating results. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to group barriers and facilitators to performing these actions. Barriers were grouped by distinct TDF domains, with 'overarching' TDF themes identified for overlapping barriers. Clinician intuitively-derived implementation strategies were matched with corresponding barriers, and retrospectively coded against behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Where no intuitive strategies were provided, theory-driven strategies were generated. An algorithm was developed and applied to articulate how implementation strategies address barriers to influence behaviour change. RESULTS Across all target behaviour areas, 32 identified barriers were coded across seven distinct TDF domains and eight overarching TDF themes. Within the 29 intuitive strategies, 21 BCTs were represented and used on 49 occasions to address 23 barriers. On 10 (20%) of these occasions, existing empirical links were found between BCTs and corresponding distinct TDF-coded barriers. Twenty additional theory-driven implementation strategies (using 19 BCTs on 31 occasions) were developed to address nine remaining barriers. CONCLUSION Clinicians naturally generate their own solutions when implementing clinical interventions, and in this clinicogenomics example these intuitive strategies aligned with theoretical recommendations 20% of the time. We have matched intuitive strategies with theory-driven BCTs to make potential underlying theory explicit through proposed structured hypothesised causal pathways. Transparency and efficiency are enhanced, providing a novel method to identify determinants of implementation. Operationalising this approach to support the design of implementation strategies may optimise practice change in response to rapidly evolving scientific advances requiring swift translation into healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, High Street Kensington, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
| | - Skye McKay
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, High Street Kensington, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Kathryn North
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jill J Francis
- School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Best S, Long JC, Braithwaite J, Taylor N. Standardizing variation: Scaling up clinical genomics in Australia. Genet Med 2023; 25:100109. [PMID: 35115231 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2021] [Revised: 01/03/2022] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Clinical genomics demands close interaction of physicians, laboratory scientists, and genetic professionals. Taking genomics to scale requires an understanding of the underlying processes from the perspective of nongenetic physicians who are new to the field. We identified components of the processes amenable to adaptation when scaling up clinical genomics. METHODS Semistructured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework with nongenetic physicians, who were using clinical genomics in practice, were guided by an annotated process map with 7 steps following the patient's journey. Findings from the individual maps were synthesized into an overview process map and a series of individual maps by common location and specialty. Interviews were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS In total, 16 nongenetic physicians (eg, nephrologists, immunologists) participated, generating 1 overview and 10 individual process maps. Sixteen common steps were identified across clinical specialties and locations, with variations over 9 steps. We report the potential for standardization across these 9 steps. CONCLUSION When scaling up complex interventions, it is essential to identify steps where variation can be accommodated. With these results we show how process mapping can be used to identify steps where variation is acceptable during scale up to accommodate adaptation to local context, allowing for the inevitable evolution of factors influencing ongoing implementation and sustainability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Janet C Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
The more you do it, the easier it gets: using behaviour change theory to support health care professionals offering reproductive genetic carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 31:430-444. [PMID: 36424524 PMCID: PMC9686264 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01224-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Revised: 10/19/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Recent advances in genomic sequencing have improved the accessibility of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). As awareness and interest grows, non-genetic health care professionals are increasingly offering RGCS to consumers. We conducted a qualitative interview study informed by behaviour change theory to identify influences on health care professionals considered as 'early adopters' offering RGCS through Mackenzie's Mission, an Australian national research study investigating the implementation of free RGCS to couple's preconception or in early pregnancy. Interviews were deductively analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to examine barriers and enabling factors. In total, we interviewed 31 health care professionals, who were primarily general practitioners (n = 23) offering RGCS through Mackenzie's Mission. Upon analysis, 15 barriers and 44 enablers to implementation were identified and categorised across three health care professional target behaviours 1. Engaging with RGCS, 2. Identifying eligible patients, and 3. Offering RGCS. Whilst all Theoretical Domains Framework domains were present, barriers were predominantly categorised as 'Environmental Context and Resources' e.g., lack of time, followed by 'Knowledge' e.g., lack of understanding about genetics and 'Beliefs about Capabilities' e.g., concern about giving high risk results to patients. Although health care professionals expressed a preference for offering RGCS through a comprehensive and supported model of care, such as Mackenzie's Mission, barriers remain. By understanding what drives current health care professionals' behaviour towards offering RGCS, behaviour change theory provides an avenue to direct future efforts based on evidence and improve service delivery.
Collapse
|
5
|
A Theory-Informed Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers to Implementing Multi-Drug Pharmacogenomic Testing. J Pers Med 2022; 12:jpm12111821. [PMID: 36579514 PMCID: PMC9696651 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12111821] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2022] [Revised: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
PGx testing requires a complex set of activities undertaken by practitioners and patients, resulting in varying implementation success. This systematic review aimed (PROSPERO: CRD42019150940) to identify barriers and enablers to practitioners and patients implementing pharmacogenomic testing. We followed PRISMA guidelines to conduct and report this review. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed Central were systematically searched from inception to June 2022. The theoretical domain framework (TDF) guided the organisation and reporting of barriers or enablers relating to pharmacogenomic testing activities. From the twenty-five eligible reports, eleven activities were described relating to four implementation stages: ordering, facilitating, interpreting, and applying pharmacogenomic testing. Four themes were identified across the implementation stages: IT infrastructure, effort, rewards, and unknown territory. Barriers were most consistently mapped to TDF domains: memory, attention and decision-making processes, environmental context and resources, and belief about consequences.
Collapse
|
6
|
Primiero CA, Baker AM, Wallingford CK, Maas EJ, Yanes T, Fowles L, Janda M, Young MA, Nisselle A, Terrill B, Lodge JM, Tiller JM, Lacaze P, Andersen H, McErlean G, Turbitt E, Soyer HP, McInerney-Leo AM. Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma. Front Genet 2022; 13:919134. [PMID: 36353112 PMCID: PMC9638172 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.919134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
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 few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare A. Primiero
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Amy M. Baker
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Courtney K. Wallingford
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Ellie J. Maas
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Lindsay Fowles
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Monika Janda
- Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Mary-Anne Young
- Kinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Amy Nisselle
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Bronwyn Terrill
- Kinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jason M. Lodge
- School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Jane M. Tiller
- Public Health Genomics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Paul Lacaze
- Public Health Genomics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Hayley Andersen
- Melanoma and Skin Cancer Advocacy Network, Carlton, VIC, Australia
| | - Gemma McErlean
- SWS Nursing and Midwifery Research Alliance, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- School of Nursing, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Erin Turbitt
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - H. Peter Soyer
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Department of Dermatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Aideen M. McInerney-Leo
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- *Correspondence: Aideen M. McInerney-Leo,
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Theory Designed Strategies to Support Implementation of Genomics in Nephrology. Genes (Basel) 2022; 13:genes13101919. [PMID: 36292804 PMCID: PMC9601730 DOI: 10.3390/genes13101919] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2022] [Revised: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: Genomic testing is increasingly utilized as a clinical tool; however, its integration into nephrology remains limited. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers and prioritize interventions for the widespread implementation of genomics in nephrology. (2) Methods: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 Australian adult nephrologists to determine their perspectives on interventions and models of care to support implementation of genomics in nephrology. Interviews were guided by a validated theoretical framework for the implementation of genomic medicine-the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). (3) Results: Nephrologists were from 18 hospitals, with 7 having a dedicated multidisciplinary kidney genetics service. Most practiced in the public healthcare system (n = 24), a large number were early-career (n = 13), and few had genomics experience (n = 4). The top three preferred interventions were increased funding, access to genomics champions, and education and training. Where interventions to barriers were not reported, we used the CFIR/Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool to generate theory-informed approaches. The preferred model of service delivery was a multidisciplinary kidney genetics clinic. (4) Conclusions: This study identified surmountable barriers and practical interventions for the implementation of genomics in nephrology, with multidisciplinary kidney genetics clinics identified as the preferred model of care. The integration of genomics education into nephrology training, secure funding for testing, and counselling along with the identification of genomics champions should be pursued by health services more broadly.
Collapse
|
8
|
Pichini A, Ahmed A, Patch C, Bick D, Leblond M, Kasperaviciute D, Deen D, Wilde S, Garcia Noriega S, Matoko C, Tuff-Lacey A, Wigley C, Scott RH. Developing a National Newborn Genomes Program: An Approach Driven by Ethics, Engagement and Co-design. Front Genet 2022; 13:866168. [PMID: 35711926 PMCID: PMC9195613 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.866168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 04/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The transformative potential of whole genome sequencing (WGS) as a diagnostic tool in healthcare has been demonstrated by initiatives including the 100,000 Genomes Project and is now offered to certain patients in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Building on these foundations, the utility of WGS in the newborn period can now be explored. Genomics England is working in partnership with NHS England and NHS Improvement and other healthcare, patient and public interest groups to design a research program embedded in the NHS to explore the potential challenges and implications of offering WGS in all newborns. The program will aim to: 1) evaluate the feasibility, utility and impact on the NHS of screening for childhood-onset rare actionable genetic conditions; 2) understand how, with consent, genomic and healthcare data could be used to enable research to develop new diagnostics and treatments; and 3) explore the implications of storing an individual's genome for use over their lifetime. Recognizing the important practical, scientific and ethical questions that we must explore in dialogue with the public and experts, we are taking a collaborative, evidence-based and ethically deliberate approach to designing the program. An iterative co-design process including a nationwide public dialogue has identified emergent themes and ethical considerations which are the focus of the program's design. These themes will be further developed through continued engagement with healthcare professionals, researchers, ethics experts, patient groups and the public, with an ongoing commitment to embedding ongoing ethics research and co-design into the delivery of the program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Christine Patch
- Genomics England, London, United Kingdom.,Engagement and Society, Wellcome Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom
| | - David Bick
- Genomics England, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Dasha Deen
- Genomics England, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Brown HL, Sherburn IA, Gaff C, Taylor N, Best S. Structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics: A scoping review. Genet Med 2022; 24:1415-1424. [PMID: 35442192 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2021] [Revised: 03/18/2022] [Accepted: 03/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to assess the extent to which structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics, proposed or adapted, are informed by evidence. METHODS A systematic approach was used to identify peer-reviewed articles and gray literature to report on 4 research questions: 1. What structured approaches have been proposed to support implementation? 2. To what extent are the structured approaches informed by evidence? 3. How have structured approaches been deployed in the genomic setting? 4. What are the intended outcomes of the structured approaches? RESULTS A total of 30 unique structured approaches to implementation were reported across 23 peer-reviewed publications and 11 gray literature articles. Most approaches were process models, applied in the preadoption implementation phase, focusing on a "service" outcome. Key findings included a lack of implementation science theory informing the development/implementation of newly designed structured approaches in the genomic setting and a lack of measures to assess implementation effectiveness. CONCLUSION This scoping review identified a significant number of structured approaches developed to inform the implementation of genomic medicine into clinical practice, with limited use of implementation science to support the process. We recommend the use of existing implementation science theory and the expertise of implementation scientists to inform the design of genomic programs being implemented into clinical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen L Brown
- Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Isabella A Sherburn
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Clara Gaff
- Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Australian Institute of Health Innovation (AIHI), Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|