4.5 Article

Knowledge, views and expectations for cancer polygenic risk testing in clinical practice: A cross-sectional survey of health professionals

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 100, 期 4, 页码 430-439

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cge.14025

关键词

cancer; cross-sectional survey; genetics; medical; health knowledge; attitudes; practice; polygenic traits

资金

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  2. NHMRC supplementary scholarship from the University of Sydney
  3. Erik Mather PhD scholarship (Melanoma Institute Australia)
  4. Melanoma Institute Australia Postgraduate Research Scholarship
  5. Translational Cancer Research Institute PhD top-up Scholarship
  6. University of Sydney
  7. Cancer Research Institute
  8. National Breast Cancer Foundation
  9. National Health and Medical Research Council [1078523, 1133049, 1147843]
  10. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1078523, 1133049] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health professionals have varying levels of knowledge and confidence in interpreting polygenic risk scores (PRS), with many feeling unprepared for its potential impact on patient care in the future. General practitioners are expected to have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals, according to survey responses.
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are becoming increasingly available in clinical practice to evaluate cancer risk. However, little is known about health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of PRS. An online questionnaire was distributed by relevant health professional organisations predominately in Australia, Canada and the US to evaluate health professionals' knowledge, views and expectations of PRS. Eligible participants were health professionals who provide cancer risk assessments. Results from the questionnaire were analysed descriptively and content analysis was undertaken of free-text responses. In total, 105 health professionals completed the questionnaire (genetic counsellors 84%; oncologists 6%; clinical geneticists 4%; other 7%). Although responses differed between countries, most participants (61%) had discussed PRS with patients, 20% had ordered a test and 14% had returned test results to a patient. Confidence and knowledge around interpreting PRS were low. Although 69% reported that polygenic testing will certainly or likely influence patient care in the future, most felt unprepared for this. If scaled up to the population, 49% expect that general practitioners would have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals. These findings will inform the development of resources to support health professionals offering polygenic testing, currently and in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据