Yue Guan1, Colleen M McBride2, Hannah Rogers3, Jingsong Zhao2, Caitlin G Allen2, Cam Escoffery2. 1. Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: yue.guan@emory.edu. 2. Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Woodruff Health Sciences Center Library, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
CONTEXT: This systematic review aims to (1) characterize strategies used to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome outside of oncology and clinical genetic settings, (2) describe the extent to which these strategies have extended the reach of genetic services to underserved target populations, and (3) summarize indicators of the potential scalability of these strategies. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Investigators searched PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for manuscripts published from October 2005 to August 2019. Eligible manuscripts were those published in English, those that described strategies to identify those at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, those implemented outside of an oncology or genetic specialty clinic, and those that included measures of cancer genetic services uptake. This study assessed strategies used to increase the reach of genetic risk screening and counseling services. Each study was evaluated using the 16-item quality assessment tool, and results were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 16 eligible studies, 11 were conducted in clinical settings and 5 in public health settings. Regardless of setting, most (63%, 10/16) used brief screening tools to identify people with a family history suggestive of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome. When reported, genetic risk screening reach (range =11%-100%) and genetic counseling reach (range =11%-100%) varied widely across studies. Strategies implemented in public health settings appeared to be more successful (median counseling reach=65%) than those implemented in clinical settings (median counseling reach=26%). Most studies did not describe fundamental components relevant for broad scalability. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to expand cancer genomic services are limited outside of traditional oncology and genetic clinics. This is a missed opportunity because evidence thus far suggests that these efforts can be successful in expanding the reach of genetic services with the potential to reduce health inequities in access. This review highlights the need for accelerating research that applies evidence-based implementation strategies and frameworks along with process evaluation to understand barriers and facilitators to scalability of strategies with high reach.
CONTEXT: This systematic review aims to (1) characterize strategies used to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome outside of oncology and clinical genetic settings, (2) describe the extent to which these strategies have extended the reach of genetic services to underserved target populations, and (3) summarize indicators of the potential scalability of these strategies. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Investigators searched PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for manuscripts published from October 2005 to August 2019. Eligible manuscripts were those published in English, those that described strategies to identify those at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, those implemented outside of an oncology or genetic specialty clinic, and those that included measures of cancer genetic services uptake. This study assessed strategies used to increase the reach of genetic risk screening and counseling services. Each study was evaluated using the 16-item quality assessment tool, and results were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 16 eligible studies, 11 were conducted in clinical settings and 5 in public health settings. Regardless of setting, most (63%, 10/16) used brief screening tools to identify people with a family history suggestive of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome. When reported, genetic risk screening reach (range =11%-100%) and genetic counseling reach (range =11%-100%) varied widely across studies. Strategies implemented in public health settings appeared to be more successful (median counseling reach=65%) than those implemented in clinical settings (median counseling reach=26%). Most studies did not describe fundamental components relevant for broad scalability. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to expand cancer genomic services are limited outside of traditional oncology and genetic clinics. This is a missed opportunity because evidence thus far suggests that these efforts can be successful in expanding the reach of genetic services with the potential to reduce health inequities in access. This review highlights the need for accelerating research that applies evidence-based implementation strategies and frameworks along with process evaluation to understand barriers and facilitators to scalability of strategies with high reach.
Authors: Daniel G Luba; James A DiSario; Colleen Rock; Devki Saraiya; Kelsey Moyes; Krystal Brown; Kristen Rushton; Maydeen M Ogara; Mona Raphael; Dayna Zimmerman; Kimmie Garrido; Evelyn Silguero; Jonathan Nelson; Matthew B Yurgelun; Fay Kastrinos; Richard J Wenstrup; Sapna Syngal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2019-04-24
Authors: Margot G F van Lier; Celine H M Leenen; Anja Wagner; Dewkoemar Ramsoekh; Hendrikus J Dubbink; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Pieter J Westenend; Eelco J R de Graaf; Leonieke M M Wolters; Wietske W Vrijland; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam; Ewout W Steyerberg; Winand N M Dinjens Journal: J Pathol Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Charles W Drescher; J David Beatty; Robert Resta; M Robyn Andersen; Kate Watabayashi; Jason Thorpe; Sarah Hawley; Hannah Purkey; Jessica Chubak; Nancy Hanson; Diana S M Buist; Nicole Urban Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Julia K Veitinger; Alice S Kerber; Sheryl G A Gabram-Mendola; Yuan Liu; Lynn M Durham; Diane Durrence; Alissa K Berzen; Janet Y Shin; Cindy Snyder; Cecelia A Bellcross; Yue Guan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 11.561
Authors: Marie T Kumerow; Juan L Rodriguez; Shifan Dai; Katherine Kolor; Melissa Rotunno; Lucy A Peipins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Melanie W Hardy; Beth N Peshkin; Esther Rose; Mary Kathleen Ladd; Savannah Binion; Mara Tynan; Colleen M McBride; Karen A Grinzaid; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2022-04-29