{"title":"最大的挣扎:\"在基因变异解释的信任和不确定性中导航\"。","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Biggest Struggle: Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation.
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.
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.