Knowledge, attitudes, and values among physicians working with clinical genomics: a survey of medical oncologists.

BACKGROUND: It has been over a decade since the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP), genomic sequencing technologies have yet to become parts of standard of care in Canada. This study investigates medical oncologists' (MOs) genomic literacy and their experiences based on their participation in a cancer genomics trial in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: The authors conducted a survey of MOs from British Columbia, Canada (n = 31, 52.5% response rate), who are actively involved in a clinical genomics trial called Personalized Onco-Genomics (POG). The authors also measured MOs' level of genomic knowledge and attitudes about clinical genomics in cancer medicine. RESULTS: The findings show a low to moderate level of genomic literacy among MOs. MOs located outside the Vancouver area (the major urban center) reported less knowledge about new genetics technologies compared to those located in the major metropolitan area (26.7 vs 73.3%, P < 0.07, Fisher exact test). Forty-two percent of all MOs thought medical training programs do not offer enough genomic training. The majority of the respondents thought genomics will have major impact on drug discovery (67.7%), and treatment selection (58%) in the next 5 years. They also thought the major challenges are cost (61.3%), patient genomic literacy (48.3%), and clinical utility of genomics (42%). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest a high need to increase genomic literacy among MOs and other doctors in medical school training programs and beyond, especially to physicians in regional areas who may need more educational interventions. Initiatives like POG play a critical role in the education of MOs and the integration of big data clinical genomics into cancer care.

Appealing to the crowd: ethical justifications in Canadian medical crowdfunding campaigns.

Medical crowdfunding is growing in terms of the number of active campaigns, amount of funding raised and public visibility. Little is known about how campaigners appeal to potential donors outside of anecdotal evidence collected in news reports on specific medical crowdfunding campaigns. This paper offers a first step towards addressing this knowledge gap by examining medical crowdfunding campaigns for Canadian recipients. Using 80 medical crowdfunding campaigns for Canadian recipients, we analyse how Canadians justify to others that they ought to contribute to funding their health needs. We find the justifications campaigners tend to fall into three themes: personal connections, depth of need and giving back. We further discuss how these appeals can understood in terms of ethical justifications for giving and how these justifications should be assessed in light of the academic literature on ethical concerns raised by medical crowdfunding.

Spatially exploring the intersection of socioeconomic status and Canadian cancer-related medical crowdfunding campaigns.

OBJECTIVES: Medical crowdfunding is a rapidly growing practice where individuals leverage social networks to raise money for health-related needs. This practice has allowed many to access healthcare and avoid medical debt but has also raised a number of ethical concerns. A dominant criticism of this practice is that it is likely to increase inequities in access to healthcare if persons from relatively wealthy backgrounds, media connections, tech-savvy and educational attainments are best positioned to use and succeed with crowdfunding. However, limited data has been published to support this claim. Our objective in this paper is to assess this concern using socioeconomic data and information from crowdfunding campaigns. SETTING: To assess this concern, we present an exploratory spatial analysis of a new dataset of crowdfunding campaigns for cancer-related care by Canadian residents. PARTICIPANTS: Four datasets were used: (1) a medical crowdfunding dataset that included cancer-related campaigns posted by Canadians, (2) 2016 Census Profile for aggregate dissemination areas, (3) aggregate dissemination area boundaries and (4) forward sortation area boundaries. RESULTS: Our exploratory spatial analysis demonstrates that use of crowdfunding for cancer-related needs in Canada corresponds with high income, home ownership and high educational attainment. Campaigns were also commonly located near city centres. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support concerns that those in positions of relative socioeconomic privilege disproportionately use crowdfunding to address health-related needs. This study was not able to determine whether other socioeconomic dimensions such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality and linguistic fluency are also correlated with use of medical crowdfunding. Thus, we call for further research to explore the relationship between socioeconomic variables and medical crowdfunding campaigning to explore these other socioeconomic variables and campaigns for needs unrelated to cancer.

Adopting clinical genomics: a systematic review of genomic literacy among physicians in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: This article investigates the genomic knowledge of oncology care physicians in the adoption of clinical genomics. We apply Rogers' knowledge framework from his diffusion of innovation theory to identify three types of knowledge in the process of translation and adoption: awareness, how-to, and principles knowledge. The objectives of this systematic review are to: (1) examine the level of knowledge among physicians in clinical cancer genomics, and (2) identify potential interventions or strategies for development of genomic education for oncology practice. METHODS: We follow the PRIMSA statement protocol and conduct a search of five relevant electronic databases. Our review focuses on: (1) genomic knowledge of oncogenomics or genomic services in oncology practices among physicians, and (2) interventions or strategies to provide genomic education of oncogenomics for physicians. RESULTS: We include twenty-one studies in our analysis. Nine focus on interventions to provide genomic education for cancer care. Overall, physicians' knowledge of oncogenomics among the three types is limited. The genomic literacy of physicians vary by their provider specialty, location, years of practice, and the type of genomic services. The three distinctions of knowledge offer a sophisticated and helpful tool to design effective strategies and interventions to provide genomic education for cancer treatment. In the nine educational intervention studies, the main intervention outcomes are changes in awareness, referral rates, genomic confidence, and genomic knowledge. CONCLUSION: Rogers' diffusion of innovation model allows us to differentiate three types of knowledge in the development and adoption of clinical genomics. This analytical lens can inform potential avenues to design more effective strategies and interventions to provide genomic education for oncology practice. We identified and synthesized a dearth of high quality studies that can inform the most effective educational outcomes of these interventions. Future research should attend to improving applications of genomic services in clinical practices, along with organizational change engendered by genomics in oncology practice.