The expectations and realities of nutrigenomic testing in australia: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Consumer genomic testing for nutrition and wellness, (nutritional genomics), is becoming increasingly popular. Concurrently, health-care practitioners (HPs) working in private practice (including doctors interested in integrative medicine, private genetic counsellors, pharmacists, dieticians, naturopaths and nutritionists) are involved as test facilitators or interpreters. OBJECTIVE: To explore Australian consumers' and HPs' experiences with nutrigenomic testing. METHOD: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using predominantly purposive sampling. The two data sets were analysed individually, then combined, using a constant comparative, thematic approach. RESULTS: Overall, 45 interviews were conducted with consumers (n = 18) and HPs (n = 27). Many of the consumer interviewees experienced chronic ill-health. Nutrigenomic testing was perceived as empowering and a source of hope for answers. While most made changes to their diet/supplements post-test, self-reported health improvements were small. A positive relationship with their HP appeared to minimize disappointment. HPs' adoption and views of nutrigenomic testing varied. Those enthusiastic about testing saw the possibilities it could offer. However, many felt nutrigenomic testing was not the only 'tool' to utilize when offering health care. DISCUSSION: This research highlights the important role HPs play in consumers' experiences of nutrigenomics. The varied practice suggests relevant HPs require upskilling in this area to at least support their patients/clients, even if nutrigenomic testing is not part of their practice. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Advisory group included patient/public group representatives who informed study design; focus group participants gave feedback on the survey from which consumer interviewees were sourced. This informed the HP data set design. Interviewees from HP data set assisted with snowball sampling.

Paediatric genomic testing: Navigating medicare rebatable genomic testing.

Genomic testing for a genetic diagnosis is becoming standard of care for many children, especially those with a syndromal intellectual disability. While previously this type of specialised testing was performed mainly by clinical genetics teams, it is increasingly being 'mainstreamed' into standard paediatric care. With the introduction of a new Medicare rebate for genomic testing in May 2020, this type of testing is now available for paediatricians to order, in consultation with clinical genetics. Children must be aged less than 10 years with facial dysmorphism and multiple congenital abnormalities or have global developmental delay or moderate to severe intellectual disability. This rebate should increase the likelihood of a genetic diagnosis, with accompanying benefits for patient management, reproductive planning and diagnostic certainty. Similar to the introduction of chromosomal microarray into mainstream paediatrics, this genomic testing will increase the number of genetic diagnoses, however, will also yield more variants of uncertain significance, incidental findings, and negative results. This paper aims to guide paediatricians through the process of genomic testing, and represents the combined expertise of educators, clinical geneticists, paediatricians and genomic pathologists around Australia. Its purpose is to help paediatricians navigate choosing the right genomic test, consenting patients and understanding the possible outcomes of testing.

General practitioners' views on genomics, practice and education: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Genomics is moving rapidly into mainstream medicine through clinical genomic testing and consumer-initiated online DNA testing. The aim of this study was to identify Australian general practitioners' (GPs') views on genomics, impact on practice and educational needs to inform continuing education. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, with constant comparative inductive analysis and governance from a national taskforce. RESULTS: Twenty-eight GPs (43% female) were interviewed; 71% worked in a metropolitan workplace. Most initially reported little experience with genetic/genomic tests but, when prompted, recognised encountering genomics, mainly non-invasive prenatal and single-gene tests. Many GPs referred patients for cancer screening to genetic services or specialists. GPs reported needing continuing education and resources, with preferences underpinned by relevance to practice. DISCUSSION: GPs are integrating genomic testing into care, mainly through prenatal screening, and anticipate further impact. They want diverse and context-dependent education but are unaware of some available resources, such as The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' Genomics in general practice guideline.