Search

The use of genomic data in research and genomic information in clinical care is increasing as technologies advance and sequencing costs decrease. Using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory as a framework we reviewed recent literature examining publics' current knowledge of, attitude to, and motivation towards health-related genomics in clinical and research settings. The population of interest was described as 'publics' to denote the heterogeneity of 'the public'. Eligible studies were published in English between 2016-2022. We retrieved 1657 records, with 278 full-text reviewed against the eligibility criteria and concept definitions. In total, 99 articles were included in the review and descriptive numerical summaries were collated. Knowledge literature was categorized using deductive thematic analysis. For attitude and motivation, literature was coded using an analytic framework developed by the authors. There was wide variability in concept definition and measurement across studies. Overall, there was general positivity about genomics, with high awareness but little familiarity or factual knowledge. Publics had high expectations of genomics and perceived that it could provide them with information for their future. Only a few key attitudes were found to be important as motivators or barriers for participation in genomics; these were related to personal and clinical utility of the information. Context was often missing from studies, decreasing the utility of findings for implementation or public engagement. Future research would benefit by using theory-driven approaches to assess relevant publics' knowledge and attitudes of specific contexts or applications to support genomic implementation and informed decision-making., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Newborn screening (NBS) programmes are highly successful, trusted, public health interventions. Genomic sequencing offers the opportunity to increase the benefits of NBS by screening infants for a greater number and variety of childhood-onset conditions. This study aimed to describe who needs to do what, when, and for whom to deliver genomic newborn screening (gNBS) and capture perceived implementation barriers and enablers. 'Key informants' (individuals involved in the delivery of NBS) were interviewed. The Actor, Action, Context, Time and Target framework guided data collection and analysis. Participants (N = 20) identified new Actions required to deliver gNBS (educating healthcare providers, longitudinal psychosocial support), NBS Actions needing modification (obtaining consent) and NBS Actions that could be adopted for gNBS (prompt referral pathways). Obtaining consent in a prenatal Context was a source of some disagreement. The Time to disclose high chance results was raised as a key consideration in gNBS programme design. Genetic counsellors were identified as key Actors in results management, but workforce limitations may be a barrier. Online decision support tools were an enabler to offering gNBS. The implementation of gNBS will require behaviour changes from HCPs delivering NBS. Findings can inform how to deliver gNBS at population-scale., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Reanalyzing stored genomic data over time is highly effective in increasing diagnostic yield in rare disease. Automation holds the promise of delivering the benefits of reanalysis at scale. Our study aimed to understand current reanalysis practices among Australian clinical and laboratory genetics services and explore attitudes towards large-scale automated re-analysis. We collected audit data regarding testing and reanalysis volumes, policies and procedures from all Australian diagnostic laboratories providing rare disease genomic testing. A genetic health professionals' survey explored current practices, barriers to reanalysis, preferences and attitudes towards automation. Between 2018 and 2021, Australian diagnostic laboratories performed over 25,000 new genomic tests and 950 reanalyses, predominantly in response to clinician requests. Laboratory and clinical genetic health professionals (N = 134) identified workforce capacity as the principal barrier to reanalysis. No specific laboratory or clinical guidelines for genomic data reanalysis or policies were identified nationally. Perceptions of acceptability and feasibility of automating reanalysis were positive, with professionals emphasizing clinical and workflow benefits. In conclusion, there is a large and rapidly growing unmet need for reanalysis of existing genomic data. Beyond developing scalable automated reanalysis pipelines, leadership and policy are needed to successfully transform service delivery models and maximize clinical benefit., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Automating reanalysis of genomic data for undiagnosed rare disease patients presents a paradigm shift in how clinical genomics is delivered. We aimed to map the current manual and proposed automated approach to reanalysis and identify possible implementation strategies to address clinical and laboratory staff's perceived challenges to automation. Fourteen semi-structured interviews guided by a simplified process map were conducted with clinical and laboratory staff across Australia. Individual process maps were integrated into an overview of the current process, noting variation in service delivery. Participants then mapped an automated approach and were invited to discuss perceived challenges and possible supports to automation. Responses were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, linking to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework to identify theory-informed implementation strategies. Process mapping demonstrates how automation streamlines processes with eleven steps reduced to seven. Although participants welcomed automation, challenges were raised at six of the steps. Strategies to overcome challenges include embedding project champions, developing education materials, facilitating clinical innovation and quality monitoring tools, and altering reimbursement structures. Future work can build on these findings to develop context specific implementation strategies to guide translation of an automated approach to reanalysis to improve clinical care and patient outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

With increasing gene discoveries for severe speech disorders, genomic testing can alter the diagnostic and clinical paradigms, enabling better life outcomes for children and their families. However, evidence on the value of the outcomes generated is lacking, impeding optimal translation into health care. This study aims to estimate the value and uptake of genomic testing for severe childhood speech disorders. A discrete choice experiment was undertaken to elicit preferences for genomic testing from the perspective of the Australian public (n = 951) and parents of children experiencing severe speech disorder (n = 56). Choice attributes associated with genomic testing were identified through focus groups. A Bayesian D-efficient design was used to develop choice scenarios and choice data were analyzed using a panel error component mixed logit model and a latent class model. Statistically significant preferences were identified across all seven attributes. The mean monetary value of the benefits of genomic testing relative to standard diagnostic care in Australia was estimated at AU$7489 (US$5021) and AU$4452 (US$2985) from the perspectives of the Australian public and families with lived experience of severe speech disorders, with a corresponding test uptake of 94.2% and 99.6%. To ensure fair prioritization of genomics, decision-makers need to consider the wide range of risks and benefits associated with genomic information., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Genomic sequencing generates huge volumes of data, which may be collected or donated to form large genomic databases. Such information can be stored for future use, either for the data donor themselves or by researchers to help improve our understanding of the genetic basis of disease. Creating datasets of this magnitude and diversity is only possible if patients, their families, and members of the public worldwide share their data. However, there is no consensus on the best technical approach to data sharing that also minimises risks to individuals and exploration of stakeholders' views on aspects of genomic data governance models-the ways genomic data is stored, managed, shared and used-has been minimal. To address this need, we conducted focus groups with 39 members of the Australian public exploring their views and preferences for different aspects of genomic data governance models. We found that consent and control were essential to participants, as they wanted the option to choose who had access to their data and for what purposes. Critically, participants wanted a trustworthy body to enforce regulation of data storage, sharing and usage. While participants recognised the importance of data accessibility, they also expressed a strong desire for data security. Finally, financial responsibility for data storage raised concerns for inequity as well as organisations and individuals using data in ethically contentious ways to generate profit. Our findings highlight some of the trade-offs that need to be considered in the development of genomic data governance systems., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The benefits of genomic testing are primarily reported in rare disease, cancer diagnosis and disease management. However, as research into its application in common, more complex conditions grows, as well as the increased prevalence of carrier screening programs, the genomic naive public is more likely to be offered testing in future. To promote social acceptability and ethical application of this technology, it is essential that public perceptions of genomics are considered. Previous studies, however, have primarily focussed on the views of those with genetic conditions or those undergoing genetic testing. The aim of this scoping review is to investigate the genomic naive public's perceptions of clinical genomics and clinical genomic testing. Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched, with a total of 3460 articles identified. Data analysis was organised according to the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Sixteen full-text articles were included in the final analysis. Most of the studies used questionnaires to determine attitudes of the public toward clinical genomics (n = 12). Public perceptions were found to underpin technology (Domain 2), value proposition (Domain 3), the adopter system (Domain 4) and the wider context (Domain 6) of the NASSS framework, highlighting its importance when considering implementation of an innovative technology such as genomic testing. Our study shows public perceptions are diverse, and highlights the need for more studies on the views of underrepresented groups and the impact of cultural contexts on perceptions., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Place plays a significant role in our health. As genetic/genomic services evolve and are increasingly seen as mainstream, especially within the field of rare disease, it is important to ensure that where one lives does not impede access to genetic/genomic services. Our aim was to identify barriers and enablers of geographical equity in accessing clinical genomic or genetic services. We undertook a systematic review searching for articles relating to geographical access to genetic/genomic services for rare disease. Searching the databases Medline, EMBASE and PubMed returned 1803 papers. Screening led to the inclusion of 20 articles for data extraction. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified four themes (i) Current service model design, (ii) Logistical issues facing clinicians and communities, (iii) Workforce capacity and capability and iv) Rural culture and consumer beliefs. Several themes were common to both rural and urban communities. However, many themes were exacerbated for rural populations due to a lack of clinician access to/relationships with genetic specialist staff, the need to provide more generalist services and a lack of genetic/genomic knowledge and skill. Additional barriers included long standing systemic service designs that are not fit for purpose due to historically ad hoc approaches to delivery of care. There were calls for needs assessments to clarify community needs. Enablers of geographically equitable care included the uptake of new innovative models of care and a call to raise both community and clinician knowledge and awareness to demystify the clinical offer from genetics/genomics services., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Healthcare systems are increasingly considering widespread implementation of rapid genomic testing of critically ill children, but evidence on the value of the benefits generated is lacking. This information is key for an optimal implementation into healthcare systems. A discrete choice experiment survey was designed to elicit preferences and values for rapid genomic testing in critically ill children. The survey was administered to members of the Australian public and families with lived experience of rapid genomic testing. A Bayesian D-efficient explicit partial profiles design was used, and data were analysed using a panel error component mixed logit model. Preference heterogeneity was explored using a latent class model and fractional logistic regressions. The public (n = 522) and families with lived experiences (n = 25) demonstrated strong preferences for higher diagnostic yield and clinical utility, faster result turnaround times, and lower cost. Society on average would be willing to pay an additional AU$9510 (US$6657) for rapid (2 weeks results turnaround time) and AU$11,000 (US$7700) for ultra-rapid genomic testing (2 days turnaround time) relative to standard diagnostic care. Corresponding estimates among those with lived experiences were AU$10,225 (US$7158) and AU$11,500 (US$8050), respectively. Our work provides further evidence that rapid genomic testing for critically ill children with rare conditions generates substantial utility. The findings can be used to inform cost-benefit analyses as part of broader healthcare system implementation., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Beyond a narrow focus on cost and outcomes, robust evidence of what is valued in genomic medicine is scarce. We gathered views on value from key stakeholders (clinical genomic staff, operational genomic staff and community representatives) in relation to three testing contexts (General Healthcare, Acute Care and Neurodevelopmental Conditions). We conducted an iterative focus group in three stages over a week using a multiphase mixed methods study, i.e. quantitative ratings and qualitative discussion. For each testing context, the characteristics of genomic testing were generated and ranked by the group using a co-productive approach. Up to 17 characteristics were identified in one scenario with several characteristics featuring in all three testing contexts. The likelihood of getting an answer was consistently reported as most highly valued, followed by the potential for the test to impact on clinical management (or wellbeing/health for Neurodevelopmental Conditions). Risk of discrimination did not feature highly across the different settings (and not at all in Acute Care). While cost was an issue in the general health setting, it was one of the least-valued characteristics in the other two testing contexts. In conclusion, co-producing an understanding of what is valued in different testing contexts, and identifying the areas of differences or commonalities, is important to maximise value provision and inform future policy to ensure that clinical genomic services meet the needs of the community and service providers.

We investigated the attitudes of intensive care physicians and genetics professionals towards rapid genomic testing in neonatal and paediatric intensive care units (NICU/PICU). A mixed-methods study (surveys and interviews) was conducted at 13 Australian hospitals and three laboratories involved in multi-center implementation of rapid genomic testing. We investigated experience and confidence with genomic tests among intensivists; perceived usefulness of genomic diagnostic results; preferences for service delivery models; and implementation readiness among genetic services. The overall survey response rate was 59%, 47% for intensivists (80/170), and 75% (91/121) for genetics professionals. Intensivists reported moderate confidence with microarray tests and lower confidence with genomic tests. The majority of intensivists (77%), clinical geneticists (87%) and genetic counsellors (82%) favoured a clinical genetics-led service delivery model of genomic testing. Perceived clinical utility of genomic results was lower in the intensivist group compared to the genetics professionals group (20 v 50%, p < 0.001). Interviews (n = 6 intensivists; n = 11 genetic counselors) demonstrated support for implementation, with concerns relating to implementation environment and organizational readiness. Overall, our findings support initial implementation of genomic testing in NICU/PICU as part of an interdisciplinary service delivery model that promotes gradual adoption of genomics by the intensive care workforce while ensuring safety, sustainability, and efficiency.