 |
|
CLINICIAN'S CORNER
Delivery of Genomic Medicine for Common Chronic Adult DiseasesA Systematic Review
Maren T. Scheuner, MD, MPH;
Pauline Sieverding, MPA, JD, PhD;
Paul G. Shekelle, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2008;299(11):1320-1334.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context The greatest public health benefit of advances in understanding the human genome may be realized for common chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and cancer. Attempts to integrate such knowledge into clinical practice are still in the early stages, and as a result, many questions surround the current state of this translation.
Objective To synthesize current information on genetic health services for common adult-onset conditions by examining studies that have addressed the outcomes, consumer information needs, delivery, and challenges in integrating these services.
Data Sources MEDLINE articles published between January 2000 and February 2008.
Study Selection Original research articles and systematic reviews dealing with common chronic adult-onset conditions were reviewed. A total of 3371 citations were reviewed, 170 articles retrieved, and 68 articles included in the analysis.
Data Extraction Data were independently extracted by one reviewer and checked by another with disagreement resolved by consensus. Variables assessed included study design and 4 key areas: outcomes of genomic medicine, consumer information needs, delivery of genomic medicine, and challenges and barriers to integration of genomic medicine.
Data Synthesis Sixty-eight articles contributed data to the synthesis: 5 systematic reviews, 8 experimental studies, 35 surveys, 7 pre/post studies, 3 observational studies, and 10 qualitative reports. Three systematic reviews, 4 experimental studies, and 9 additional studies reported on outcomes of genetic services. Generally there were modest positive effects on psychological outcomes such as worry and anxiety, behavioral outcomes have shown mixed results, and clinical outcomes were less well studied. One systematic review, 1 randomized controlled trial, and 14 other studies assessed consumer information needs and found in general that genetics knowledge was reported to be low but that attitudes were generally positive. Three randomized controlled trials and 13 other studies assessed how genomic medicine is delivered and newer models of delivery. One systematic review and 19 other studies assessed barriers; the most consistent finding was the self-assessed inadequacy of the primary care workforce to deliver genetic services. Additional identified barriers included lack of oversight of genetic testing and concerns about privacy and discrimination.
Conclusion Many gaps in knowledge about organization, clinician, and patient needs must be filled to translate basic and clinical science advances in genomics of common chronic diseases into practice.
INTRODUCTION
The greatest public health benefit of advances in understanding the human genome will likely occur as genomic medicine expands its focus from rare genetic disorders to inclusion of more common chronic diseases, such as coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and cancer. These diseases are generally due to complex interactions between variations in multiple genes and the environment and only rarely are due to single-gene forms of the disease. With genomics discoveries relating to common chronic diseases, numerous genetic tests may emerge that hold promise for significant changes in the delivery of health care, particularly in preventive medicine and in tailoring drug treatment.
Attempts to integrate genetic/genomic knowledge of common chronic conditions into clinical practice are in the early stages, and as a result, many questions surround the current state of this translation. These questions include, what are the outcomes of genomic medicine? What is the current level of consumer understanding about genomic medicine, and what information do consumers need before they seek services? How is genomic medicine best delivered? What are the challenges and barriers to integrating genomic medicine into clinical practice? By examining studies relevant to these questions, this systematic review attempts to synthesize available information on the delivery of genomic medicine for common adult-onset conditions.
METHODS
Data Sources and Study Selection
A review of articles published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2000 and February 2008 was conducted using MEDLINE. Searches were conducted independently by 1 of us (M.T.S.) and a professional librarian using the following Medical Subject Headings: genetics/genomics AND, outcomes, patient information needs/willingness to participate, delivery of services, workforce manpower issues, role of primary care, privacy issues, including insurance and employment issues. Reference mining of retrieved articles from these searches was used to identify additional articles.
Only original research articles and systematic review articles were reviewed. Systematic reviews were defined by having described a search for literature using computerized databases (eg, MEDLINE) and the presentation of findings in a systematic way. If we identified an article as already summarized in an accepted systematic review, we excluded it to avoid double-counting data. Commentaries, essays, legal analyses, consensus statements, and editorials were excluded. Delivery of genetic services and the associated issues were different in developed as compared with developing countries; therefore, we excluded articles about developing countries.
Because we were interested in genetic services for adults who have or who are at risk for common chronic diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, and coronary heart disease, we only included articles concerning these types of conditions, including multifactorial forms of common chronic diseases, and single-gene disorders that typically present in adulthood and feature common chronic diseases, such as breast and ovarian cancer due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations or iron overload due to HFE gene mutations. This means we excluded articles that dealt with children or adolescents; genetic disorders that generally manifest in childhood (eg, neurofibromatosis or sickle cell anemia); rare genetic disorders that manifest in adulthood (eg, Huntington disease); reproductive issues; animal studies; genetically modified foods; research that did not pertain to clinical genetic services (eg, genetic association studies or studies describing participation in basic genetics research); and genetics educational resources, materials, curricula, or educational interventions for health professionals or the public.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
Data were extracted (M.T.S.) and checked (P.G.S.) with disagreement resolved by consensus. Variables assessed included study design and topics within 4 key areas based on the key questions. We encountered 2 instances of potential overlap between topic categories and elected to resolve them as follows: we considered studies describing consumer educational needs as information needs rather than a barrier to integration of genetic services, and articles assessing use of family history in practice were classified as barriers to integration of genetic services rather than a model of integration into primary care, since these articles uniformly described inadequacies of most physicians in collecting and assessing familial risk.
Frequencies of data were tabulated and articles were grouped into topic categories. Evidence tables were created for each key area, and a narrative synthesis was performed. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the studies, we could not justify statistical pooling.
RESULTS
The literature searches and reference mining yielded 10 866 titles. After removal of duplicates and clearly irrelevant titles, 3371 citations were reviewed, and from these, 68 articles were selected and retrieved (Figure).
The number of articles in each category and topic according to type of study are presented in Table 1. The most common study designs were cross-sectional surveys and qualitative or descriptive studies. There were 5 systematic reviews and 8 experimental studies.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Characteristics of 68 Genomics Health Services Articles Included for Review
|
|
|
Outcomes of Genomic Medicine
We identified 16 articles that described outcomes resulting from genomic medicine. These studies were further categorized as relating to psychological, affective, and cognitive outcomes; behavioral outcomes; or clinical outcomes (Table 2).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Evidence Table of Studies of Outcomes of Genetic/Genomic Health Services
|
|
|
Psychological, Affective, or Cognitive Outcomes. We identified 7 articles that assessed psychological, affective, or cognitive outcomes, including 2 systematic reviews, 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 survey, and 2 pre/post studies. One systematic review addressed the perceived risks and psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing in adults with a family history of disease.1 A total of 35 articles involving 30 studies met criteria for this review. Only 1 RCT was included, 2 were cross-sectional studies, and the remainder had prospective designs.
Sixteen studies described outcomes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, 11 for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, 1 for both hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, and 2 for Alzheimer disease. The majority of the studies reported negative effects on affective outcomes for individuals found to carry genetic susceptibility mutations—but these effects were generally short-lived, and there were generally no differences between carriers and noncarriers with respect to perceived risk 12 months after genetic testing. An increase in screening behavior was observed in carriers, but the change was less than expected.
We identified another systematic review that addressed the effects of genetic counseling and testing for breast cancer susceptibility.2 This review identified 15 studies, which were mostly observational in design, and concluded that, in general, counseling and testing was not associated with increased psychological distress and was associated with some improvements in decreased worry, anxiety, and depression.
One RCT involving obese individuals found that consultation that included genetics content did not have negative effects on self-efficacy, self-control, or increase in body weight after 6 months. In addition, the individuals with a family history of obesity who received consultation with genetics content reported significant improvement of negative mood after 6 months.3 Another RCT reported that education and personalized prevention recommendations increased the accuracy of risk perception without increasing worry in adult nondiabetic offspring of diabetic parents.4
The importance of risk perception associated with family history was described in a survey of patients with and without a family history of colorectal cancer. Being screened appropriately was significantly associated with a high perception of risk for colorectal cancer among those with a family history.5 The remaining identified studies were pre/post in design, assessing psychological or affective outcomes in patients before and after genetic counseling, and reported improvements in satisfaction, knowledge, and reductions in worry.6-7
Behavioral Outcomes. We identified 5 articles relating to patient or clinician behavioral outcomes resulting from genetic services. A systematic review of 11 studies assessing patients' behavioral responses to genetic risk information relating to cancer and heart disease concluded that results were mixed, with some studies showing no change in behavioral outcomes, whereas other studies reported increased motivation to participate in cancer screening.8
Results from a survey of US physicians about exposure to and attitudes toward advertisements for genetic tests for inherited cancer susceptibility found that 27% had received advertising for genetic susceptibility tests and 25% felt that such advertising would be important in their decision-making to recommend testing.9 Another survey of primary care clinicians in the United States assessed factors influencing whether these physicians would order a genetic test to individually tailor smoking-cessation treatment. The study found that the most important factors for ordering such a test included the ability to more precisely target smoking-cessation treatment and to encourage patients with the knowledge that their treatment was tailored. However, concerns about genetic discrimination were an important barrier.10
A survey of Massachusetts family physicians found that physicians expected their patients to be more likely to get screened for cancer and make lifestyle and behavioral changes if genetic testing identified them as at increased risk.11 Survey data from 65 patients with history of depression found that depressed patients reported that they were willing to pay for improvements in treatment response to antidepressant medication, and their stated willingness to pay for a 5% improvement in treatment response exceeded the price of a pharmacogenetic test.12
Clinical Outcomes. We identified 4 studies that assessed clinical outcomes. A pre/post study assessed women with BRCA mutations and reported that after counseling, 15% and 50% underwent risk-reducing surgery for breast and ovarian cancer, respectively, and 4 early stage cancers were identified. Among women who did not undergo prophylactic surgery, recommended cancer screening increased.13
A nonrandomized comparison of Greek patients who had at least 2 unsuccessful attempts at weight loss compared conventional diet and nutrition counseling with nutrition counseling informed by a nutrigenomics test result. For the first 300 days, weight loss between groups was not statistically different, but among the 50% of patients with more than 300 days of follow-up, there was a statistically significant difference of about 5 kg, with the test group weighing less on average.14
We identified only 1 RCT of a genetic testing intervention for a common condition that measured a clinical outcome.15 In this trial, 200 adults requiring warfarin anticoagulation were randomized to standard dosing vs a dosing schedule determined from a formula that takes into account CYP2CP and VKORC1 genotypes. During the time to achieve a stable maintenance dose, there was no difference between groups in the primary outcome of the percentage of international normalized ratios outside the therapeutic range (31% in the pharmacogenetic group and 33% in the standard dosing group). Patients in the pharmacogenetic group did have significantly fewer dose adjustments and fewer blood samples drawn for testing international normalized ratios.
One study reported possible harms from genetic testing. Among 24 patients who had BRCA testing and were found to have an unclassified variant (meaning the result of the test was uninformative), semistructured interviews revealed that 19 interpreted this information as "pathogenic" and 10 went on to undergo preventive surgery. None of the 5 patients who interpreted this test result as uninformative had preventive surgery.16
Consumer Information Needs
We identified 16 articles describing consumer information needs, including 1 systematic review, 1 RCT, 10 surveys, 2 pre/post studies, and 2 qualitative studies. Five articles addressed consumers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about genetics and the other 11 addressed the intention to seek or participate in genetic services, including uptake of genetic testing (Table 3).
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Evidence Table of Studies of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs About Genetic Services and Informational Needs of Consumers
|
|
|
Five surveys from the United States and the Netherlands assessed consumers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs, and generally they all found that genetic knowledge was low, but attitudes about genetics were positive. However, there were concerns about genetic discrimination.17-21 Two surveys from the United States investigated knowledge and attitudes of Hispanic participants regarding cancer genetic services, found interest in such services,20 and found that acculturation factors related to language may affect awareness.21
Six articles focused on the intention to seek genetic services, including motivations for genetic testing. An RCT randomized 2165 primary care patients into 2 groups—one offered a DNA-based test for hemochromatosis and the other a phenotypic test—and then assessed the willingness to have the testing. The authors found that acceptance of testing was about the same for both groups (56% for genotypic and 58% for phenotypic testing) and that reasons for refusal included a need to talk with a physician (44%), concern about privacy (32%), and dislike of blood drawing (29%).22
Two surveys of patients with colorectal cancer assessed factors contributing to decision making about genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, including germline testing23 and tumor microsatellite instability testing.24 Among 314 patients, motivations for germline testing included learning of increased risk to children and finding out whether additional screening was needed. For 125 patients eligible for tumor microsatellite instability testing, the majority had positive attitudes about the potential benefits and perceived few barriers to undergoing the test, despite having little knowledge about the test. A pre/post study used interviews and questionnaires to assess barriers to participating in genetic counseling and BRCA gene testing for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer.25 Participation was not influenced by distress, knowledge about hereditary breast cancer, previous genetic testing in relatives, or perceived risk and barriers.
A survey of 187 mothers undergoing BRCA gene testing who had children aged 8 to 21 years found that most of these women were motivated to have testing for the information it provided to their children, and they believed that having such information could be used to prevent or control cancer in their children. The 2 most common informational resource needs of these mothers for discussing their BRCA test results with their children included reading educational literature (93%) and speaking with a family counselor (86%).26
Another survey of 139 women previously treated for early stage breast cancer found that the majority (76%) would have been interested in genetic testing to determine risk of recurrence with most (84%) wanting to include information from test results in decision making about treatment.27
Five articles addressed patients' information needs related to participation in genetic services. Two articles underscored the importance of eliciting the patient's perspective when discussing risk of chronic disease, particularly in the context of the family history. A systematic literature review that included 11 qualitative research studies found that for individuals with a family history of cancer, coronary heart disease, or diabetes, the salience of their family history was determined by acknowledging that a disease runs in the family, and this was strongly influenced by the personal experiences of that illness in relatives. Some of these factors were the same as the medical factors used to assess familial risk (ie, the number of affected relatives and age at onset), but others were more personal, such as emotional or physical closeness of a family member.28 A qualitative study published the following year delved further into patients' perceived familial risk and found that a sense of vulnerability to common chronic disease depended on the emotional impact of experiencing the illness in the family, especially if the illness was sudden, premature, or fatal, and the nature of personal relationships within the family.29
A pre/post study from the United States of women eligible for referral to cancer genetics consultation found that after 6 months those who had attended the consultation were significantly more knowledgeable, but clinical history, perceived risk, family history, psychological state, and anxiety were not associated with attendance.30
Two articles addressed the genetic counselor-patient interaction. A cross-sectional study of observed behavior from the Netherlands found that adults referred for cancer genetics consultation had a strong psychosocial focus, which was important to their agenda for the consult; however, these needs only minimally influenced the interaction during the visit because patients did not communicate their previsit needs.31 A qualitative study from the United States that interviewed genetic counselors and their patients found that the goals of genetic counseling were often unclear to both. Although counselors objected to stating goals because doing so implied a preset agenda, patients were uncertain about the role of the counselor and the boundaries of what would be discussed. Most patients appreciated the time spent by genetic counselors and believed that their physicians could not provide the service.32
Delivery of Genomic Medicine
We identified 16 articles that described the delivery of genomic medicine. These studies were further classified as relating to existing genetic services and the genetics workforce, integration of genetics into primary care, and new models of genetic services delivery (Table 4).
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Evidence Table of Studies Assessing How Genetic/Genomic Medicine Is Delivered
|
|
|
Five articles described genetic services and the current genetics workforce: 4 surveys of the genetics workforce in the United States and 1 descriptive study of regional genetic health centers in the United Kingdom. Two surveys used data from a mailed questionnaire to the 1576 active physician and PhD members of the American Board of Medical Genetics and found that 60% of respondents perceived that there were inadequate numbers of geneticists33 and that geneticists providing services for adult-onset diseases represented the smallest proportion of geneticists (7%).34 Another survey obtained data from active members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section of Genetics and Birth Defects and physicians certified by the American Board of Medical Genetics and found that 5% had training in internal medicine, and adult patients seen for reasons other than prenatal services represented only 12% of patients seen by geneticists.35 The fourth survey described characteristics and professional roles of 211 nurse genetics specialists in the United States and found that most (57%) provided direct patient care and worked in genetics (26%) or oncology (22%) settings.36 The descriptive study from the United Kingdom found that half of referrals come from primary care, genetic counselors were key to providing genetic services, and genetic testing was primarily for single-gene disorders.37
Six articles described the integration of genetics into primary care. This included 1 qualitative study from Canada that found family physicians anticipate providing more genetic services, but they were uncertain and had concerns about their abilities to do so.38 The remaining 5 articles were from the United Kingdom and described a range of approaches to integrating clinical genetic services into primary care, including 2 pre/post studies, 1 survey, 1 qualitative study, and 1 cluster RCT.
Three studies (the RCT, the survey, and a pre/post study) addressed the use of a nurse genetics specialist within the primary care setting. Both the RCT and the survey found that patient satisfaction with the service provided by the nurse genetics specialist was high and costs with the new model were less.39-40 The pre/post study found that physicians believed that contact with a nurse genetics specialist helped in identifying patients in need of a genetics referral and that nurse genetics specialists provided current genetics information to them.41
The other 2 studies examined the effect of referral guidelines for cancer genetics services among general practitioners. The qualitative study found that physicians appreciated that referral guidelines would improve their referral patterns,42 and the pre/post study found that guidelines were associated with improved referral patterns.43
Five articles described new models of genetic services. One experimental study evaluated telephone disclosure of BRCA genetic test results compared with traditional genetic services and found there were no significant differences in anxiety and general well-being between the 2 groups, and both groups reported similar rates of satisfaction with the services.44 A survey of rural physician practices in northern Maine and public health nurses statewide found that health professionals receiving and providing educational and clinical genetic services via videoconferencing generally found it to be a positive and satisfying experience.45 One experimental study randomized general practice teams in the United Kingdom to the use of computerized decision support software that aided in familial risk assessment of breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer or to a comparison group that received education and guidelines; it found that with decision support, there were significantly more genetics referrals, and these referrals were more likely to be consistent with referral guidelines.46
Regarding direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic services, an observational study that assessed nutrigenomics tests found that the genetic test results provided little influence on the assessment and recommendations provided by the test companies, and test results frequently included recommendations for the consumer to purchase costly dietary supplements.47 A survey of primary care physicians and consumers in the United States found that a small percentage (14%) of consumers were aware of nutrigenomic testing and of those who had a nutrigenomics test, only 10% had discussed the results with their physicians.48
Barriers to Clinical Integration of Genomic Medicine
We identified 20 articles that described barriers to the clinical integration of genomic medicine. These articles were further classified as relating to health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and abilities; lack of oversight of genetic testing; and privacy, confidentiality, and genetic discrimination concerns (Table 5).
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Evidence Table of the Challenges or Barriers to the Clinical Integration of Genomic Information
|
|
|
Fifteen articles described health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and abilities pertaining to medical genetics. This included 1 systematic review, 10 surveys, 2 observational studies, 1 descriptive study, and 1 qualitative study.
The systematic review included 18 studies that dealt with primary care physicians' perceived barriers concerning the provision of genetic services. The studies were published between 1993 and 2001 and included 7 surveys, 4 pre/post tests, 4 qualitative studies, 1 observational study, and 1 cluster RCT. These studies found that physicians reported that they lack sufficient knowledge and confidence relating to provision of genetic services and they have limited time to obtain family history.49 These themes were also identified in the other 14 articles.
The 10 surveys and the qualitative study we found assessed genetics knowledge and attitudes of a variety of health professionals from the United States, Australia, and the Netherlands, and these studies found similar results to the systematic review,49 with respondents feeling underprepared for assessing and managing genetic issues in their practice and lacking basic genetic knowledge.50-60
The 2 observational studies and the descriptive study we retrieved described health professionals' abilities to collect, document, and interpret family history. These studies found that a majority of patients with a strong familial risk for a common disease lacked documentation of key family history elements in their medical record, as well as documentation of genetic risk assessment or referral for genetics evaluation.61-63 A survey of family physicians also found that most (87%) believed that family history screening is important; however, only 62% were confident in the ability to recognize patients with hereditary risk.53
One article described oversight of genetic testing. A survey of 190 genetic testing laboratory directors found that most would support formal registration under a genetic testing specialty regulated by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and that proficiency testing could improve the quality of genetic testing.64
Four articles described concerns about privacy and genetic discrimination. Two articles used data from the same qualitative comparative analysis of states with and without laws prohibiting genetic discrimination by health insurers. One article found that there are no well-documented cases of health insurers either asking for or using presymptomatic genetic test results for underwriting purposes.65 The other study found that patients' and clinicians' fears of genetic discrimination in health insurance exceeds reality, and this fear may deter genetic testing, especially for high-cost tests and adult-onset diseases.66
A cross-sectional survey of 86 859 patients in primary care settings participating in a hemochromatosis screening study in North America found that African American and Asian individuals were less likely to have concerns about genetic discrimination, and younger participants, US residents, and those with less than a high school education were more likely to have these concerns.67 A follow-up survey of 832 participants from this cohort who were screened for iron phenotypes and HFE genotypes associated with hemochromatosis found that after 1 year, none reported problems with health insurance or employment and only 3 (0.4%) reported problems with life insurance or long-term care insurance.68
COMMENT
Genomic advances hold the promise to improve care and prevention of common chronic diseases. Although that promise has yet to be fully realized, new genetic discoveries make the reality of that promise seem closer than ever before. However, if past experience with other health care advances is any guide, patients will not realize the full benefit of genomic advances without a thorough understanding of the organization, clinician, and patient needs that are required to translate these advances into improved clinical outcomes. Our systematic review reveals a large gap between what knowledge is available and what health systems still need to know about the outcomes, consumer needs, organization of health services, and barriers, to ensure appropriate and effective clinical integration of genomic information and technologies for common chronic disease.
The most important and consistent finding from our literature review is that the primary care workforce, which will be required to be on the front lines of the integration of genomics into the regular practice of medicine, feels woefully underprepared to do so. Remediation of this deficiency should be a top priority, and more studies are needed to test models for how this can be feasibly accomplished.
A second theme we identified is that consumers have unclear and dissonant notions about the value of genetic testing for common chronic disease. In general, consumers knew little about genetics/genomics but were interested in the prospect of this technology helping to better identify diseases for which they and their family members were at increased risk. Consumers were also worried about the possible adverse consequences of genetic testing, particularly the privacy issues and discrimination in health insurance and employment. Therefore, another research need is the development and testing of interventions to promote greater understanding of genomic medicine among consumers. Such interventions may need to be tailored for the needs of specific populations.
A third theme we identified is that there is a great need to better understand the outcomes of genomic medicine interventions for common chronic disease. To date most studies have assessed these outcomes using weak pre/post study designs, and in general these studies have assessed changes in psychological, affective, and cognitive outcomes of patients receiving genetic counseling and testing for single-gene disorders. More research describing clinical outcomes is needed: do patients who receive counseling and testing have better clinical outcomes in terms of mortality, decreases in incidence of disease, and better clinical responses to pharmaceuticals? And at what cost?
We identified other barriers to the clinical integration of genomic medicine for common chronic disease, in addition to the perceived inadequacy of the primary care workforce to participate in this. The most prominent of these include health professionals' lack of basic knowledge about genetics and their lack of confidence in interpreting familial patterns of disease, which limits their ability to appropriately counsel their patients, order and accurately interpret genetic tests, and refer their patients for genetics consultation. In addition, there may not be sufficient numbers of genetics professionals available to meet the demand for genetic services.
Our review has several limitations. First was the difficulty in identifying health services studies of genomic medicine for common chronic disease. We know of no empirical assessments identifying an optimal search strategy for such studies as, for example, there exist optimal search strategies to identify RCTs and studies of risk and prognosis. We searched MEDLINE using reasonable search terms, but we acknowledge it is likely that we have failed to identify some studies of relevance. However, given the consistency of the studies we did identify, we believe it is unlikely that missing literature would substantially change our main conclusions.
Second, we did not address the literature dealing with prenatal genetics, pediatric genetics, genetic conditions with pediatric onset experienced by adults, or rare single-gene disorders presenting in adulthood. Our focus was on the opportunities and challenges of genomics interventions for common chronic diseases of adulthood. Even then we found that the evidence regarding these conditions is largely limited to single-gene disorders that manifest as common diseases in adulthood, particularly cancer.
Third, because this literature was a heterogeneous combination of study questions, designs, populations, and outcomes, synthesizing the study findings involved making a certain number of judgments on our part. We tried to be explicit and describe these judgments as fully as possible so readers can understand what we did.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, this review of health services research studies revealed many gaps in the organization, clinician, and patient needs that must be filled to realize the full benefits of genomics. These studies reported that consumers need more and better information to understand the value of genomic medicine for common chronic diseases; that the primary care workforce is not prepared to meet the challenge of integrating common disease genetics/genomics into the regular practice of medicine; that the genetics workforce appears to have inadequate numbers to respond to genetic service needs for adult-onset conditions; that few models of integration into primary care have been successfully implemented on a wide scale; and that a host of barriers exist, such as lack of oversight for genetic testing technologies and concerns about privacy and discrimination. All of these issues need attention. It will be a lost opportunity if the health services research components of genomic medicine fail to keep pace with the rapid basic science advances and clinical discoveries.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author: Maren T. Scheuner, MD, MPH, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (scheuner{at}rand.org).
Author Contributions: Dr Scheuner had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Scheuner, Sieverding, Shekelle.
Acquisition of data: Scheuner.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Scheuner, Shekelle.
Drafting of the manuscript: Scheuner, Sieverding, Shekelle.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Scheuner, Shekelle.
Obtained funding: Sieverding, Shekelle.
Study supervision: Shekelle.
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: This work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service, and was conducted by a team that included Veterans Affairs employees.
Role of the Sponsor: Employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs were involved in the design and conduct of the study; in the analysis and interpretation of the data; and in the preparation and review of the manuscript.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Veterans Health Administration, or the Health Services Research and Development Service.
Previous Presentations: Presented at a planning meeting of experts in health services research and genomics and Veterans Affairs policy makers in Washington, DC; September 2007.
Additional Contributions: We are grateful to Roberta Shanman (RAND Corporation), Brett Munjas (VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System), and David Adamson, PhD (RAND Corporation), who contributed to the completion of this article. These individuals did not receive compensation for their efforts beyond their usual salary.
Author Affiliations: RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California (Drs Scheuner and Shekelle); Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service, Washington, DC (Dr Sieverding); and VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California (Dr Shekelle).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genet Med. 2008;10(1):19-32.
PUBMED
2. Butow PN, Lobb EA, Meiser B, Barratt A, Tucker KM. Psychological outcomes and risk perception after genetic testing and counselling in breast cancer: a systematic review. Med J Aust. 2003;178(2):77-81.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
3. Rief W, Conradt M, Dierk JM; et al. Is information on genetic determinants of obesity helpful or harmful for obese people? a randomized clinical trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(11):1553-1559.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
4. Pierce M, Ridout D, Harding D, Keen H, Bradley C. More good than harm: a randomised controlled trial of the effect of education about familial risk of diabetes on psychological outcomes. Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50(460):867-871.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
5. Palmer RC, Emmons KM, Fletcher RH; et al. Familial risk and colorectal cancer screening health beliefs and attitudes in an insured population. Prev Med. 2007;45(5):336-341.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
6. Collins V, Halliday J, Warren R, Williamson R. Cancer worries, risk perceptions and associations with interest in DNA testing and clinic satisfaction in a familial colorectal cancer clinic. Clin Genet. 2000;58(6):460-468.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
7. Pieterse AH, van Dulmen AM, Beemer FA, Bensing JM, Ausems MG. Cancer genetic counseling: communication and counselees' post-visit satisfaction, cognitions, anxiety, and needs fulfillment. J Genet Couns. 2007;16(1):85-96.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
8. Marteau TM, Lerman C. Genetic risk and behavioural change. BMJ. 2001;322(7293):1056-1059.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Vadaparampil ST, Wideroff L, Olson L, Viswanath K, Freedman AN. Physician exposure to and attitudes toward advertisements for genetic tests for inherited cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;135(1):41-46.
PUBMED
10. Levy DE, Youatt EJ, Shields AE. Primary care physicians' concerns about offering a genetic test to tailor smoking cessation treatment. Genet Med. 2007;9(12):842-849.
PUBMED
11. Gramling R, Nash J, Siren K, Culpepper L. Predictive genetics in primary care: expectations for the motivational impact of genetic testing affects the importance family physicians place on screening for familial cancer risk. Genet Med. 2003;5(3):172-175.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
12. Herbild L, Gyrd-Hansen D, Bech M. Patient preferences for pharmacogenetic screening in depression. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(1):96-103.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
13. Scheuer L, Kauff N, Robson M; et al. Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1260-1268.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. Arkadianos I, Valdes AM, Marinos E, Florou A, Gill RD, Grimaldi KA. Improved weight management using genetic information to personalize a calorie controlled diet. Nutr J. 2007;6:29.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
15. Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM; et al. Randomized trial of genotype-guided versus standard warfarin dosing in patients initiating oral anticoagulation. Circulation. 2007;116(22):2563-2570.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Vos J, Otten W, van Asperen C, Jansen A, Menko F, Tibben A. The counsellees' view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life [published online ahead of print December 21, 2007]. Psychooncology .
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
17. Morren M, Rijken M, Baanders AN, Bensing J. Perceived genetic knowledge, attitudes towards genetic testing, and the relationship between these among patients with a chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;65(2):197-204.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
18. de Vries H, Mesters I, van de Steeg H, Honing C. The general public's information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the Integrated Change Model. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56(2):154-165.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
19. Peters N, Rose A, Armstrong K. The association between race and attitudes about predictive genetic testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(3):361-365.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Ricker CN, Hiyama S, Fuentes S; et al. Beliefs and interest in cancer risk in an underserved Latino cohort. Prev Med. 2007;44(3):241-245.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
21. Vadaparampil ST, Wideroff L, Breen N, Trapido E. The impact of acculturation on awareness of genetic testing for increased cancer risk among Hispanics in the year 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(4):618-623.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Anderson RT, Press N, Tucker DC; et al. Patient acceptability of genotypic testing for hemochromatosis in primary care. Genet Med. 2005;7(8):557-563.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
23. Esplen MJ, Madlensky L, Aronson M; et al. Colorectal cancer survivors undergoing genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: motivational factors and psychosocial functioning. Clin Genet. 2007;72(5):394-401.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
24. Manne SL, Chung DC, Weinberg DS; et al. Knowledge and attitudes about microsatellite instability testing among high-risk individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(10):2110-2117.
FREE FULL TEXT
25. Schlich-Bakker KJ, ten Kroode HF, Warlam-Rodenhuis CC, van den Bout J, Ausems MG. Barriers to participating in genetic counseling and BRCA testing during primary treatment for breast cancer. Genet Med. 2007;9(11):766-777.
PUBMED
26. Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, Demarco TA; et al. Information needs of mothers regarding communicating BRCA1/2 cancer genetic test results to their children. Genet Test. 2007;11(3):249-255.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
27. O’Neill SC, Brewer NT, Lillie SE; et al. Women's interest in gene expression analysis for breast cancer recurrence risk. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(29):4628-4634.
FREE FULL TEXT
28. Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, Marteau TM. Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(6):583-594.
FREE FULL TEXT
29. Walter FM, Emery J. ‘Coming down the line’: patients' understanding of their family history of common chronic disease. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(5):405-414.
FREE FULL TEXT
30. O’Neill SM, Peters JA, Vogel VG, Feingold E, Rubinstein WS. Referral to cancer genetic counseling: are there stages of readiness? Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2006;142(4):221-231.
PUBMED
31. Pieterse AH, van Dulmen AM, Ausems MG, Beemer FA, Bensing JM. Communication in cancer genetic counselling: does it reflect counselees' previsit needs and preferences? Br J Cancer. 2005;92(9):1671-1678.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
32. Bernhardt BA, Biesecker BB, Mastromarino CL. Goals, benefits, and outcomes of genetic counseling: client and genetic counselor assessment. Am J Med Genet. 2000;94(3):189-197.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
33. Cooksey JA, Forte G, Benkendorf J, Blitzer MG. The state of the medical geneticist workforce: findings of the 2003 survey of American Board of Medical Genetics certified geneticists. Genet Med. 2005;7(6):439-443.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
34. Cooksey JA, Forte G, Flanagan PA, Benkendorf J, Blitzer MG. The medical genetics workforce: an analysis of clinical geneticist subgroups. Genet Med. 2006;8(10):603-614.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
35. Pletcher BA, Jewett EA, Cull WL; et al. The practice of clinical genetics: a survey of practitioners. Genet Med. 2002;4(3):142-149.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
36. Lea DH, Williams JK, Cooksey JA, Flanagan PA, Forte G, Blitzer MG. US genetics nurses in advanced practice. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2006;38(3):213-218.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
37. Donnai D, Elles R. Integrated regional genetic services: current and future provision. BMJ. 2001;322(7293):1048-1052.
FREE FULL TEXT
38. Carroll JC, Brown JB, Blaine S, Glendon G, Pugh P, Medved W. Genetic susceptibility to cancer: family physicians' experience. Can Fam Physician. 2003;49:45-52.
FREE FULL TEXT
39. Holloway S, Porteous M, Cetnarskyj R; et al. Patient satisfaction with two different models of cancer genetic services in south-east Scotland. Br J Cancer. 2004;90(3):582-589.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
40. Westwood G, Pickering RM, Latter S, Lucassen A, Little P, Karen Temple I. Feasibility and acceptability of providing nurse counsellor genetics clinics in primary care. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53(5):591-604.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
41. Drury N, Bethea J, Guilbert P, Qureshi N. Genetics support to primary care practitioners: a demonstration project. J Genet Couns. 2007;16(5):583-591.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
42. Elwyn G, Iredale R, Gray J. Reactions of GPs to a triage-controlled referral system for cancer genetics. Fam Pract. 2002;19(1):65-71.
FREE FULL TEXT
43. Lucassen A, Watson E, Harcourt J, Rose P, O’Grady J. Guidelines for referral to a regional genetics service: GPs respond by referring more appropriate cases. Fam Pract. 2001;18(2):135-140.
FREE FULL TEXT
44. Jenkins J, Calzone KA, Dimond E; et al. Randomized comparison of phone versus in-person BRCA1/2 predisposition genetic test result disclosure counseling. Genet Med. 2007;9(8):487-495.
PUBMED
45. Lea DH, Johnson JL, Ellingwood S, Allan W, Patel A, Smith R. Telegenetics in Maine: successful clinical and educational service delivery model developed from a 3-year pilot project. Genet Med. 2005;7(1):21-27.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
46. Emery J, Morris H, Goodchild R; et al. The GRAIDS Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of computer decision support for the management of familial cancer risk in primary care. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(4):486-493.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
47. Kutz G. Nutrigenetic testing: tests purchased from four Web sites mislead consumers: testimony before the Special Committee on Aging, US Senate, July 27, 2006 [GAO-06-977T]. http://aging.senate.gov/events/hr162gk.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2008.48. Goddard KA, Moore C, Ottman D, Szegda KL, Bradley L, Khoury MJ. Awareness and use of direct-to-consumer nutrigenomic tests, United States, 2006. Genet Med. 2007;9(8):510-517.
PUBMED
49. Suther S, Goodson P. Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 2003;5(2):70-76.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
50. Lapham EV, Kozma C, Weiss JO, Benkendorf JL, Wilson MA. The gap between practice and genetics education of health professionals: HuGEM survey results. Genet Med. 2000;2(4):226-231.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
51. Wilkins-Haug L, Erickson K, Hill L, Power M, Holzman GB, Schulkin J. Obstetrician-gynecologists' opinions and attitudes on the role of genetics in women's health. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9(8):873-879.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
52. Freedman AN, Wideroff L, Olson L; et al. US physicians' attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet A. 2003;120(1):63-71.
53. Gramling R, Nash J, Siren K, Eaton C, Culpepper L. Family physician self-efficacy with screening for inherited cancer risk. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(2):130-132.
FREE FULL TEXT
54. Maradiegue A, Edwards QT, Seibert D, Macri C, Sitzer L. Knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of advanced practice nursing students regarding medical genetics. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2005;17(11):472-479.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
55. Chen LS, Goodson P. Public health genomics knowledge and attitudes: a survey of public health educators in the United States. Genet Med. 2007;9(8):496-503.
PUBMED
56. Baars MJ, Scherpbier AJ, Schuwirth LW; et al. Deficient knowledge of genetics relevant for daily practice among medical students nearing graduation. Genet Med. 2005;7(5):295-301.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
57. Metcalfe S, Hurworth R, Newstead J, Robins R. Needs assessment study of genetics education for general practitioners in Australia. Genet Med. 2002;4(2):71-77.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
58. Doksum T, Bernhardt BA, Holtzman NA. Does knowledge about the genetics of breast cancer differ between nongeneticist physicians who do or do not discuss or order BRCA testing? Genet Med. 2003;5(2):99-105.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
59. Wideroff L, Freedman AN, Olson L; et al. Physician use of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: results of a national survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12(4):295-303.
FREE FULL TEXT
60. Sandhaus LM, Singer ME, Dawson NV, Wiesner GL. Reporting BRCA test results to primary care physicians. Genet Med. 2001;3(5):327-334.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
61. Sweet KM, Bradley TL, Westman JA. Identification and referral of families at high risk for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(2):528-537.
FREE FULL TEXT
62. Frezzo TM, Rubinstein WS, Dunham D, Ormond KE. The genetic family history as a risk assessment tool in internal medicine. Genet Med. 2003;5(2):84-91.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
63. Murff HJ, Byrne D, Syngal S. Cancer risk assessment: quality and impact of the family history interview. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(3):239-245.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
64. Hudson KL, Murphy JA, Kaufman DJ, Javitt GH, Katsanis SH, Scott J. Oversight of US genetic testing laboratories. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(9):1083-1090.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
65. Hall MA, Rich SS. Laws restricting health insurers' use of genetic information: impact on genetic discrimination. Am J Hum Genet. 2000;66(1):293-307.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
66. Hall MA, Rich SS. Patients' fear of genetic discrimination by health insurers: the impact of legal protections. Genet Med. 2000;2(4):214-221.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
67. Hall MA, McEwen JE, Barton JC; et al. Concerns in a primary care population about genetic discrimination by insurers. Genet Med. 2005;7(5):311-316.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
68. Hall MA, Barton JC, Adams PC; et al. Genetic screening for iron overload: no evidence of discrimination at 1 year. J Fam Pract. 2007;56(10):829-834.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Genetic Architecture of Type 2 Diabetes: Recent Progress and Clinical Implications
Grant et al.
Diabetes Care 2009;32:1107-1114.
FULL TEXT
How to Use an Article About Genetic Association: C: What Are the Results and Will They Help Me in Caring for My Patients?
Attia et al.
JAMA 2009;301:304-308.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Personalized Genetic Prediction: Too Limited, Too Expensive, or Too Soon?
Ioannidis
ANN INTERN MED 2009;150:139-141.
FULL TEXT
Knowing me, knowing you
Lenzer and Brownlee
BMJ 2008;336:858-860.
FULL TEXT
Genetics and Genomics for Clinicians
Fontanarosa et al.
JAMA 2008;299:1364-1365.
FULL TEXT
|
