4.6 Review

Evaluating the role of public health in implementation of genomics-related recommendations: a case study of hereditary cancers using the CDC Science Impact Framework

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 28-37

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0028-2

关键词

evaluation; hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; Lynch syndrome; public health genomics; Science Impact Framework

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Public health plays an important role in ensuring access to interventions that can prevent disease, including the implementation of evidence-based genomic recommendations. We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Science Impact Framework to trace the impact of public health activities and partnerships on the implementation of the 2009 Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Lynch Syndrome screening recommendation and the 2005 and 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing recommendations. The EGAPP and USPSTF recommendations have each been cited by > 300 peer-reviewed publications. CDC funds selected states to build capacity to integrate these recommendations into public health programs, through education, policy, surveillance, and partnerships. Most state cancer control plans include genomics-related goals, objectives, or strategies. Since the EGAPP recommendation, major public and private payers now provide coverage for Lynch Syndrome screening for all newly diagnosed colorectal cancers. National guidelines and initiatives, including Healthy People 2020, included similar recommendations and cited the EGAPP and USPSTF recommendations. However, disparities in implementation based on race, ethnicity, and rural residence remain challenges. Public health achievements in promoting the evidence-based use of genomics for the prevention of hereditary cancers can inform future applications of genomics in public health.

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

4.6
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