Protocol for Health Risk Information Technology-Assisted Genetic Evaluation (HeRITAGE): a randomised controlled trial of digital genetic cancer risk assessment in a diverse underserved gynaecology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, up to 95% of individuals harbouring cancer-predisposing germline pathogenic variants have not been identified despite recommendations for screening at the primary care level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our primary objective is to use a two-arm, single-institution randomised controlled trial to compare the proportion of eligible patients that are recommended genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes using a digital tool versus clinician interview for genetic cancer risk assessment in an urban academic gynaecology clinic. New gynaecology patients will be consented and randomised 1:1 to either the intervention arm, in which a digital tool is used for genetic cancer risk assessment, or usual care, in which the clinician performs genetic cancer risk assessment. Individuals will be considered eligible for hereditary cancer syndrome genetic testing if criteria set forth by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology are met. Eligible patients are 18 years or older, speak and read English, have not yet undergone hereditary cancer genetic testing and have access to a smartphone. The study aims to enrol 50 patients in each arm to allow for 80% power with two-tailed alpha of 5% to detect a 20% difference in proportion of eligible patients recommended for genetic testing. The primary outcome is the proportion of eligible individuals recommended genetic testing in the digital tool arm versus usual care arm, analysed using the χ2 or Fisher's exact test as appropriate for sample size. The secondary outcome is completion of genetic testing, as well as exploration of patient factors, particularly social determinants of health, which may affect the receipt, utilisation and experience with genetic services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Weill Cornell Institutional Review Board (Protocol No. 21-11024123). Participants will be informed of the benefits and risks of participation prior to consent. Dissemination of data will be deidentified and conducted through academic conferences and journals. Patients identified to be eligible for genetic testing who did not receive counselling from their providers will be contacted; participants will not receive direct notification of trial results. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05562778) in September 2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: This is protocol version 1, as of 22 May 2024. COUNTRIES OF RECRUITMENT AND RECRUITMENT STATUS: USA, currently recruiting. HEALTH CONDITIONS/PROBLEMS STUDIED: Genetic predisposition to cancers such as breast, ovarian, uterine and pancreatic. DEIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL CLINICAL TRIAL PARTICIPANT-LEVEL DATA IDP SHARING STATEMENT: IDP will not be shared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05562778.

Patient and provider perspectives on telemedicine use in an outpatient gynecologic clinic serving a diverse, low-income population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient and provider experiences using telemedicine for gynecologic visits among a diverse, low-income population. METHODS: Patients attending telemedicine visits at a resident-run gynecology clinic completed a modified Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire and providers completed a survey addressing satisfaction and barriers for each visit. The Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire included six subscales to assess telemedicine usability with 1-5 Likert-scale responses. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and two-sample t-test. RESULTS: Of 192 patients enrolled, 157 (82%) completed the surveys (87% video visits, 13% telephone visits). Most patients were ethnic minorities (non-Hispanic White-16%, Hispanic-32%, Black-28%, Asian-10%), median age was 40 years (range 18-69), and 63% reported income under $40,000. The total mean Telemedicine Usability Questionnaire score was 4.3/5. The reliability subscale score (3.72/5) was lower compared to all other subscales (p < 0.001). Older respondents were more likely to find telemedicine unreliable (mean age >44 vs <39, p = 0.02). Without telemedicine, 54% would have traveled ≥1 h to appointments, with 46% spending over $35 on travel, and 27% missing ≥ 1 workday. Patients preferred telemedicine for follow-up rather than initial visits (81% vs 33%, p < 0.01). Among providers, residents felt less adequately trained in telemedicine compared to nurse practitioners and fellows (54% vs 46%, p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Low-income women utilizing telemedicine for outpatient gynecologic care report positive experiences with improved access to healthcare, cost, and time savings compared to in-person visits. Provider experiences were also positive; however, teaching hospitals must evaluate whether trainee providers feel adequately trained to deliver telemedicine visits.

Underrepresented minority representation trends in gynecologic oncology fellowships in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate representation trends of historically underrepresented minority (URM) groups in gynecologic oncology fellowships in the United States using a nationwide database collected by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). METHODS: Data on self-reported ethnicity/race of filled residency positions was collected from ACGME Database Books across three academic years from 2016 to 2019. Primary chi-square analysis compared URM representation in gynecologic oncology to obstetrics and gynecology, other surgical specialties, and other medical specialties. Secondary analysis examined representation of two URM subgroups: 1) Asian/Pacific Islander, and 2) Hispanic, Black, Native American, Other (HBNO), across specialty groups. RESULTS: A total of 528 gynecologic oncology positions, 12,559 obstetrics and gynecology positions, 52,733 other surgical positions, and 240,690 other medical positions from ACGME accredited medical specialties were included in analysis. Primary comparative analysis showed a statistically significant lower proportion (P < 0.05) of URM trainees in gynecologic oncology in comparison to each of obstetrics and gynecology, other surgical fields, and other medical fields. Secondary analysis also demonstrated a significantly lower proportion (P < 0.05) of HBNO physicians in gynecologic oncology in comparison to obstetrics and gynecology, as well as all other medical and surgical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the disparities in URM representation, especially those who identify as HBNO, in gynecologic oncology fellowship training in comparison to obstetrics and gynecology as well as other medical and surgical fields. Improvements to the current recruitment and selection practices in gynecologic oncology fellowships in the United States are necessary in order to ensure a diverse and representative workforce.