RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Unlike aggregate research on groups of participants with a particular disorder, genomic research on discrete families' rare conditions could result in data of use to families, their healthcare, as well as generating knowledge on the human genome. OBJECTIVE: In a study of families seeking to rule in/out genetic causes for their children's medical conditions via exome sequencing, we solicited their views on the importance of genomic information. Our aim was to learn the interests of parents in seeking genomic research data and to gauge their responsiveness and engagement with the research team. METHODS: At enrollment, we offered participants options in the consent form for receiving potentially clinically relevant research results. We also offered an option of being a "partner" versus a "traditional" participant; partners could be re-contacted for research and study activities. We invited adult partners to complete a pre-exome survey, attend annual family forums, and participate in other inter-family interaction opportunities. RESULTS: Of the 385 adults enrolled, 79% opted for "partnership" with the research team. Nearly all (99.2%) participants opted to receive research results pertaining to their children's primary conditions. A majority indicated the desire to receive additional clinically relevant outside the scope of their children's conditions (92.7%) and an interest in non-clinically relevant genetic information (82.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most participants chose partnership, including its rights and potential burdens; however, active engagement in study activities remained the exception. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of participants-both partners and traditional-expected to receive all genetic information resulting from the research study.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Prior reports demonstrate that personalized medicine implementation in clinical care is lacking. Given the program focus at Duke University on personalized medicine, we assessed health care providers' perspectives on their preparation and educational needs to effectively integrate personalized medicine tools and applications into their clinical practices. METHODS: Data from 78 health care providers who participated in a larger study of personalized and precision medicine at Duke University were analyzed using Qualtrics (descriptive statistics). Individuals age 18 years and older were recruited for the larger study through broad email contacts across the university and health system. All participants completed an online 35-question survey that was developed, pilot-tested, and administered by a team of interdisciplinary researchers and clinicians at the Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine. RESULTS: Overall, providers reported being ill-equipped to implement personalized medicine in clinical practice. Many respondents identified educational resources as critical for strengthening personalized medicine implementation in both research and clinical practice. Responses did not differ significantly between specialists and primary providers or by years since completion of the medical degree. CONCLUSIONS: Survey findings support prior calls for provider and patient education in personalized medicine. Respondents identified focus areas in training, education, and research for improving personalized medicine uptake. Given respondents' emphasis on educational needs, now may be an ideal time to address these needs in clinical training and public education programs.
RESUMEN
UNLABELLED: In this age of personalized medicine, genetic and genomic testing is expected to become instrumental in health care delivery, but little is known about its actual implementation in clinical practice. METHODS: We surveyed Duke faculty and healthcare providers to examine the extent of genetic and genomic testing adoption. We assessed providers' use of genetic and genomic testing options and indications in clinical practice, providers' awareness of pharmacogenetic applications, and providers' opinions on returning research-generated genetic test results to participants. Most clinician respondents currently use family history routinely in their clinical practice, but only 18 percent of clinicians use pharmacogenetics. Only two respondents correctly identified the number of drug package inserts with pharmacogenetic indications. We also found strong support for the return of genetic research results to participants. Our results demonstrate that while Duke healthcare providers are enthusiastic about genomic technologies, use of genomic tools outside of research has been limited. Respondents favor return of research-based genetic results to participants, but clinicians lack knowledge about pharmacogenetic applications. We identified challenges faced by this institution when implementing genetic and genomic testing into patient care that should inform a policy and education agenda to improve provider support and clinician-researcher partnerships.
RESUMEN
Genomic technologies are reaching the point of being able to detect genetic variation in patients at high accuracy and reduced cost, offering the promise of fundamentally altering medicine. Still, although scientists and policy advisers grapple with how to interpret and how to handle the onslaught and ambiguity of genome-wide data, established and well-validated molecular technologies continue to have an important role, especially in regions of the world that have more limited access to next-generation sequencing capabilities. Here we review the range of methods currently available in a clinical setting as well as emerging approaches in clinical molecular diagnostics. In parallel, we outline implementation challenges that will be necessary to address to ensure the future of genetic medicine.