Barbara Lerner1, Nell Marshall2, Sabine Oishi2, Andrew Lanto2, Martin Lee2, Alison B Hamilton2,3, Elizabeth M Yano2,4, Maren T Scheuner2,5. 1. VA HSR&D Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. VA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation &Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of genetic testing from the perspective of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinical leadership. METHODS: We administered an Internet-based survey to VA clinical leaders nationwide. Respondents rated the value (on a 5-point scale) of each of six possible reasons for genetic testing. Bivariate and linear regressions identified associations between value ratings and environmental, organizational, provider, patient, and encounter characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 353; 63% response rate) represented 92% of VA medical centers. Tests that inform clinical management had the highest value rating (58.6%), followed by tests that inform disease prevention (56.4%), reproductive options (50.1%), life planning (43.9%), and a suspected (39.9%) or established (32.3%) diagnosis. Factors positively associated with high value included a culture that fosters adoption of genomics, specialist versus primary care provider, genetic tests available on laboratory menus, availability of genetic testing guidelines, clinicians knowing when to request genetics referrals, and availability of genetics professionals. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the varied value of genetic testing from the perspective of clinical leadership within a health-care system. Engaging organizational leadership in understanding the various reasons for genetic testing and its value beyond clinical utility may increase adoption of genetic tests to support patient-centered care.Genet Med advance online publication 15 December 2016.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of genetic testing from the perspective of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinical leadership. METHODS: We administered an Internet-based survey to VA clinical leaders nationwide. Respondents rated the value (on a 5-point scale) of each of six possible reasons for genetic testing. Bivariate and linear regressions identified associations between value ratings and environmental, organizational, provider, patient, and encounter characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 353; 63% response rate) represented 92% of VA medical centers. Tests that inform clinical management had the highest value rating (58.6%), followed by tests that inform disease prevention (56.4%), reproductive options (50.1%), life planning (43.9%), and a suspected (39.9%) or established (32.3%) diagnosis. Factors positively associated with high value included a culture that fosters adoption of genomics, specialist versus primary care provider, genetic tests available on laboratory menus, availability of genetic testing guidelines, clinicians knowing when to request genetics referrals, and availability of genetics professionals. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the varied value of genetic testing from the perspective of clinical leadership within a health-care system. Engaging organizational leadership in understanding the various reasons for genetic testing and its value beyond clinical utility may increase adoption of genetic tests to support patient-centered care.Genet Med advance online publication 15 December 2016.
Authors: J A Sim; J S Shin; S M Park; Y J Chang; A Shin; D Y Noh; W Han; H K Yang; H J Lee; Y W Kim; Y T Kim; S Y Jeong; J H Yoon; Y J Kim; D S Heo; T Y Kim; D Y Oh; H G Wu; H J Kim; E K Chie; K W Kang; Y H Yun Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jeffrey R Botkin; Steven M Teutsch; Celia I Kaye; Maxine Hayes; James E Haddow; Linda A Bradley; Kathleen Szegda; W David Dotson Journal: Genet Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Alison B Hamilton; Sabine Oishi; Elizabeth M Yano; Cynthia E Gammage; Nell J Marshall; Maren T Scheuner Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: M Cabell Jonas; Pim Suwannarat; Andrea Burnett-Hartman; Nikki Carroll; Michelle Turner; Kristen Janes; Christine Truong; Erica Blum-Barnett; Nazneen Aziz; Elizabeth A McGlynn Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2019-11-01
Authors: Amy A Lemke; Laura M Amendola; Kristine Kuchta; Henry M Dunnenberger; Jennifer Thompson; Christian Johnson; Nadim Ilbawi; Lauren Oshman; Peter J Hulick Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2020-10-13