The Biggest Struggle: Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY Public Health Genomics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1159/000542274
Zachary Griffen, Dina M Asfaha, Kellie Owens
{"title":"The Biggest Struggle: Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation.","authors":"Zachary Griffen, Dina M Asfaha, Kellie Owens","doi":"10.1159/000542274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As the utility of genomic sequencing increases, its use in healthcare will continue to expand beyond expert clinics toward nonspecialist practices such as primary care. At the same time, discordance in genetic variant identification and classification between laboratories remains a concern for the field. This research assesses how clinicians with and without genetics expertise understand and trust genetic test results, underscoring how variation in the handling of genetic test results can have real impact on patient care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted 40 interviews with genetics experts, including clinical geneticists and genetic counselors, and nonexpert clinicians including primary care providers and cardiologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinical geneticists and genetic counselors reported spending significant time assessing the validity of results from genetic testing laboratories, conversing with laboratories about those results, and potentially reinterpreting results. Conversely, primary care providers and cardiologists without specific genetics expertise reported high levels of trust in laboratory accuracy and variant interpretation, and did not reassess results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We find significant variation in how genetics experts and nonexperts understand the trustworthiness of genetic laboratory reports. This variation could lead to differences in patient care between clinical settings and requires additional guidance for clinicians regarding the handling of genetic test results.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"228-232"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11588501/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542274","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: As the utility of genomic sequencing increases, its use in healthcare will continue to expand beyond expert clinics toward nonspecialist practices such as primary care. At the same time, discordance in genetic variant identification and classification between laboratories remains a concern for the field. This research assesses how clinicians with and without genetics expertise understand and trust genetic test results, underscoring how variation in the handling of genetic test results can have real impact on patient care.

Methods: We conducted 40 interviews with genetics experts, including clinical geneticists and genetic counselors, and nonexpert clinicians including primary care providers and cardiologists.

Results: Clinical geneticists and genetic counselors reported spending significant time assessing the validity of results from genetic testing laboratories, conversing with laboratories about those results, and potentially reinterpreting results. Conversely, primary care providers and cardiologists without specific genetics expertise reported high levels of trust in laboratory accuracy and variant interpretation, and did not reassess results.

Conclusion: We find significant variation in how genetics experts and nonexperts understand the trustworthiness of genetic laboratory reports. This variation could lead to differences in patient care between clinical settings and requires additional guidance for clinicians regarding the handling of genetic test results.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
最大的挣扎:"在基因变异解释的信任和不确定性中导航"。
导言:随着基因组测序技术的应用日益广泛,其在医疗保健领域的应用也将继续从专家门诊扩展到基层医疗等非专科领域。与此同时,实验室之间基因变异识别和分类的不一致仍然是该领域的一个问题。这项研究评估了具有和不具有遗传学专业知识的临床医生如何理解和信任基因检测结果,强调了基因检测结果处理方面的差异如何对患者护理产生实际影响:我们对遗传学专家(包括临床遗传学家和遗传咨询师)和非专家临床医生(包括初级保健提供者和心脏病专家)进行了 40 次访谈:结果:临床遗传学家和遗传咨询师称,他们花费了大量时间来评估遗传检测实验室结果的有效性,与实验室就这些结果进行交流,并可能对结果进行重新解释。相反,没有特定遗传学专业知识的初级保健提供者和心脏病专家对实验室的准确性和变异解释表示高度信任,并且没有重新评估结果:我们发现遗传学专家和非遗传学专家对遗传实验室报告可信度的理解存在很大差异。这种差异可能会导致不同临床环境下患者护理的差异,因此需要为临床医生提供更多有关处理基因检测结果的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health Genomics
Public Health Genomics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Public Health Genomics'' is the leading international journal focusing on the timely translation of genome-based knowledge and technologies into public health, health policies, and healthcare as a whole. This peer-reviewed journal is a bimonthly forum featuring original papers, reviews, short communications, and policy statements. It is supplemented by topic-specific issues providing a comprehensive, holistic and ''all-inclusive'' picture of the chosen subject. Multidisciplinary in scope, it combines theoretical and empirical work from a range of disciplines, notably public health, molecular and medical sciences, the humanities and social sciences. In so doing, it also takes into account rapid scientific advances from fields such as systems biology, microbiomics, epigenomics or information and communication technologies as well as the hight potential of ''big data'' for public health.
期刊最新文献
Investigating the impact of screen-sharing visual aids during genomic results disclosure via telehealth in diverse families in the TeleKidSeq pilot study. Adopting public health genomics when the house is on fire: How will we navigate to 2030? Modern Family: An Ethical Justification for System-Led Contact of Relatives Eligible for Cascade Screening in the United States. Variation Exists in Service Delivery: Similarities and Differences in the Provision of a Whole Genome Sequencing Service for Paediatric Rare Disease Patients in the National Health Service in England. Evaluating the Implementation of the Rapid Prenatal Exome Sequencing Service in England.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1