Karen P. Powell

Educational Needs of Primary Care Physicians Regarding Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

To assess the educational needs of North Carolina primary care physicians (PCPs) about direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, surveys were mailed to 2,402 family and internal medicine providers in North Carolina. Out of 382 respondents, 323 (85%) felt unprepared to answer patient questions and 282 (74%) reported wanting to learn about DTC genetic testing. A total of 148 (39%) were aware of DTC genetic testing. Among these, 63 (43%) thought DTC genetic testing was clinically useful. PCPs who felt either unprepared to answer patient questions (OR = 0.354, p = 0.01) or that DTC genetic testing was clinically useful (OR = 5.783, p = 0.00) were more likely to want to learn about DTC genetic testing. PCPs are interested in learning about DTC genetic testing, but are mostly unaware of DTC testing and feel unprepared to help patients with DTC testing results. Familiar and trusted channels that provide the information and tools PCPs need to help answer patient’s questions and manage their care should be used when creating educational programs.

A Community’s Awareness and Perceptions of Genomic Medicine

Background: Focus groups were conducted in a mid-sized community to explore community members’ awareness and perceptions of genomic medicine and identify effective methods to educate the public about this topic. Methods: Thirteen focus groups were conducted with a demographically representative pool of 121 participants using a semi-structured interview guide. Transcripts were analyzed through a computer assisted approach with Atlas TI consisting of coding, categorizing, comparing, and contrasting relevant data. Results: Identified categories were organized into 6 main themes, which were similar across the groups and included: a lack of awareness, perceived benefits, concerns about genomic medicine, reasons for poor health related behavior, the potential impact of genetic information on health behavior, and the best ways to educate the community. Common concerns included lack of affordability, unanticipated physical harm, mistrust of the government and researchers, downstream effects like overpopulation, playing God/disturbing the natural order, lack of regulations, loss of privacy, genetic discrimination, and moral dilemmas posed by genetic engineering, cloning, choosing traits, and abortions resulting from genetic information. Participants also discussed ways to educate the community. Conclusions: While individuals recognized that diseases run in families, personal experience was a driving factor in participants’ level of knowledge. Many expressed optimism about genomic medicine. However, the lack of depth in responses and their misconceptions reflect a deficiency of knowledge, which along with their personal, moral, and global concerns could impede acceptance and utilization of genomic medicine. Many community members are receptive to learning more about genomic medicine, and many of their concerns and misconceptions can be addressed through a well designed education strategy.

Quality of family history collection with use of a patient facing family history assessment tool

BackgroundStudies have shown that the quality of family health history (FHH) collection in primary care is inadequate to assess disease risk. To use FHH for risk assessment, collected data must have adequate detail. To address this issue, we developed a patient facing FHH assessment tool, MeTree. In this paper we report the content and quality of the FHH collected using MeTree.MethodsDesign: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness study. Patients were recruited from 2009 to 2012. Setting: Two community primary care clinics in Greensboro, NC. Participants: All non-adopted adult English speaking patients with upcoming appointments were invited to participate. Intervention: Education about and collection of FHH with entry into MeTree. Measures: We report the proportion of pedigrees that were high-quality. High-quality pedigrees are defined as having all the following criteria: (1) three generations of relatives, (2) relatives’ lineage, (3) relatives’ gender, (4) an up-to-date FHH, (5) pertinent negatives noted, (6) age of disease onset in affected relatives, and for deceased relatives, (7) the age and (8) cause of death (Prim Care31:479–495, 2004.).ResultsEnrollment: 1,184. Participant demographics: age range 18-92 (mean 58.8, SD 11.79), 56% male, and 75% white. The median pedigree size was 21 (range 8-71) and the FHH entered into MeTree resulted in a database of 27,406 individuals. FHHs collected by MeTree were found to be high quality in 99.8% (N = 1,182/1,184) as compared to <4% at baseline. An average of 1.9 relatives per pedigree (range 0-50, SD 4.14) had no data reported. For pedigrees where at least one relative has no data (N = 497/1,184), 4.97 relatives per pedigree (range 1-50, SD 5.44) had no data. Talking with family members before using MeTree significantly decreased the proportion of relatives with no data reported (4.98% if you talked to your relative vs. 10.85% if you did not, p-value < 0.001.).ConclusionUsing MeTree improves the quantity and quality of the FHH data that is collected and talking with relatives prior to the collection of FHH significantly improves the quantity and quality of the data provided. This allows more patients to be accurately risk stratified and offered appropriate preventive care guided by their risk level.Trial numberNCT01372553

Expanding Roles: A Survey of Public Health Genetic Counselors

According to the 2008 National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Professional Status Survey (PSS), 31 genetic counselor respondents reported spending at least 50% of their time in the area of public health. The NSGC Public Health Special Interest Group (PHSIG) had 49 dues-paying members in 2009. The purpose of this study was to identify the work settings and public health activities in which genetic counselors participate. A novel online survey was disseminated over the NSGC PHSIG Listserv. Forty-one percent (n = 13) of public health genetic counselor respondents worked in a university medical system, while 53% (n = 17) were grant-funded and held a non-clinical appointment. The most common public health activities included educating healthcare professionals (82%) and community members (61%), research (55%), grant writing (55%) and grant administration (36%). Most respondents (82%) reported learning certain public health skills outside of their genetic counseling training programs. Differences in work settings were found, with a significantly greater percentage of public health genetic counselors working in government agencies. Genetic counselors have opportunities to become involved in public health activities as the scope of public health genetics grows. Furthermore, genetic counseling competencies are compatible with the Institute of Medicine’s “10 Essential Public Health Services.” The NSGC and genetic counseling training programs are encouraged to offer more public health learning opportunities for genetic counselors and genetic counseling students interested in this specialty area.

Implementing Family Health History Risk Stratification in Primary Care: Impact of Guideline Criteria on Populations and Resource Demand

The Genomic Medicine Model aims to facilitate patient engagement, patient/provider education of genomics/personalized medicine, and uptake of risk‐stratified evidence‐based prevention guidelines using MeTree, a patient‐facing family health history (FHH) collection and clinical decision support (CDS) program. Here we report the number of increased risk (above population‐level risk) patients identified for breast/ovarian cancer, colon cancer, hereditary syndrome risk, and thrombosis; the prevalence of FHH elements triggering increased‐risk status; and the resources needed to manage their risk. Study design: hybrid implementation‐effectiveness study of adults with upcoming well‐visits in 2 primary care practices in Greensboro, NC. Participants: 1,184, mean age = 58.8, female = 58% (N = 694), non‐white = 20% (N = 215). Increased Risk: 44% (N = 523). Recommendations: genetic counseling = 26% (N = 308), breast MRI = 0.8% (N = 10), breast chemoprophylaxis = 5% (N = 58), early/frequent colonoscopies = 19% (N = 221), ovarian cancer screening referral = 1% (N = 14), thrombosis testing/counseling = 2.4% (N = 71). FHH elements: 8 FHH elements lead to 37.3% of the increased risk categorizations (by frequency): first‐degree‐relative (FDR) with polyps age ≥60 (7.1%, N = 85), three relatives with Lynch‐related cancers (5.4%, N = 65), FDR with polyps age <60 (5.1%, N = 61), three relatives on same side of family with same cancer (4.9%, N = 59), Gail score ≥1.66% (4.9%, N = 58), two relatives with breast cancer (one ≤age 50) (4.1%, N = 49), one relative with breast cancer ≤age 40 (4.1%, N = 48), FDR with colon cancer age ≥60 (1.7%, N = 20). MeTree identifies a high percentage of individuals in the general primary care population needing non‐routine risk management/prevention for the selected conditions. Implementing risk‐stratification in primary care will likely increase demand for related‐resources, particularly colon screening and GC. Understanding the prevalence of FHH elements helps predict resource needs and may aid in guideline development.

The Use of a Family History Risk Assessment Tool within a Community Health Care System: Views of Primary Care Providers

Primary care providers (PCPs) offered input regarding the incorporation of a family health history (FHH) risk assessment tool into a community health care system (CHCS). Sixteen PCPs participated in one of three focus groups. Perceived impediments included the lack of standard screening guidelines, effective screening tests, genetic counseling resources, and services for high-risk patients. The PCPs were concerned about their level of expertise, the cost of preventive health care, and genetic discrimination. They also were concerned about the use of a FHH tool by oncologists within the CHCS because of communication gaps between oncologists and PCPs, lack of clarity regarding follow-up and legal liability, and reimbursement issues. To integrate a FHH tool into a CHCS, PCPs will need consultation and referral services, evidence-based recommendations, and “just-in-time” educational resources. Oncologists who use the tool will need to develop a streamlined communication system with PCPs, establish clearly defined roles, and ensure patient follow-up.