BACKGROUND: Genomic risk profiling involves the analysis of genetic variations linked through statistical associations to a range of disease states. There is considerable controversy as to how, and even whether, to incorporate these tests into routine medical care. OBJECTIVE: To assess physician attitudes and uptake of genomic risk profiling among an 'early adopter' practice group. DESIGN: We surveyed members of MDVIP, a national group of primary care physicians (PCPs), currently offering genomic risk profiling as part of their practice. POPULATION: All physicians in the MDVIP network (N = 356) RESULTS: We obtained a 44% response rate. One third of respondents had ordered a test for themselves and 42% for a patient. The odds of having ordered personal testing were 10.51-fold higher for those who felt well-informed about genomic risk testing (p < 0.0001). Of those who had not ordered a test for themselves, 60% expressed concerns for patients regarding discrimination by life and long-term/disability insurers, 61% about test cost, and 62% about clinical utility. The odds of ordering testing for their patients was 8.29-fold higher among respondents who had ordered testing for themselves (p < 0.0001). Of those who had ordered testing for patients, concerns about insurance coverage (p = 0.014) and uncertain clinical utility (p = 0.034) were associated with a lower relative frequency of intention to order testing again in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that respondent familiarity was a key predictor of physician ordering behavior and clinical utility was a primary concern for genomic risk profiling. Educational and interpretive support may enhance uptake of genomic risk profiling.
BACKGROUND: Genomic risk profiling involves the analysis of genetic variations linked through statistical associations to a range of disease states. There is considerable controversy as to how, and even whether, to incorporate these tests into routine medical care. OBJECTIVE: To assess physician attitudes and uptake of genomic risk profiling among an 'early adopter' practice group. DESIGN: We surveyed members of MDVIP, a national group of primary care physicians (PCPs), currently offering genomic risk profiling as part of their practice. POPULATION: All physicians in the MDVIP network (N = 356) RESULTS: We obtained a 44% response rate. One third of respondents had ordered a test for themselves and 42% for a patient. The odds of having ordered personal testing were 10.51-fold higher for those who felt well-informed about genomic risk testing (p < 0.0001). Of those who had not ordered a test for themselves, 60% expressed concerns for patients regarding discrimination by life and long-term/disability insurers, 61% about test cost, and 62% about clinical utility. The odds of ordering testing for their patients was 8.29-fold higher among respondents who had ordered testing for themselves (p < 0.0001). Of those who had ordered testing for patients, concerns about insurance coverage (p = 0.014) and uncertain clinical utility (p = 0.034) were associated with a lower relative frequency of intention to order testing again in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that respondent familiarity was a key predictor of physician ordering behavior and clinical utility was a primary concern for genomic risk profiling. Educational and interpretive support may enhance uptake of genomic risk profiling.
Authors: Louise Wideroff; Andrew N Freedman; Lorayn Olson; Carrie N Klabunde; William Davis; Kadaba P Srinath; Robert T Croyle; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alexandra E Shields; David Blumenthal; Kevin B Weiss; Catherine B Comstock; Douglas Currivan; Caryn Lerman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: A N Freedman; L Wideroff; L Olson; W Davis; C Klabunde; K P Srinath; B B Reeve; R T Croyle; R Ballard-Barbash Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: S G Nicholls; B J Wilson; S M Craigie; H Etchegary; D Castle; J C Carroll; B K Potter; L Lemyre; J Little Journal: Genome Date: 2013-08-31 Impact factor: 2.166
Authors: Jason L Vassy; Kurt D Christensen; Melody J Slashinski; Denise M Lautenbach; Sridharan Raghavan; Jill Oliver Robinson; Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby; Lindsay Zausmer Feuerman; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Michael F Murray; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire Journal: Per Med Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: A E Anderson; K G Flores; W Boonyasiriwat; A Gammon; W Kohlmann; W C Birmingham; M D Schwartz; J Samadder; K Boucher; A Y Kinney Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 2.000