Literature DB >> 33168338

Initiatives to Scale Up and Expand Reach of Cancer Genomic Services Outside of Specialty Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review.

Yue Guan1, Colleen M McBride2, Hannah Rogers3, Jingsong Zhao2, Caitlin G Allen2, Cam Escoffery2.   

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.
Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33168338      PMCID: PMC7855907          DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.08.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  41 in total

Review 1.  Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

Authors:  R E Glasgow; T M Vogt; S M Boles
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 2.  Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review.

Authors:  Trisha Greenhalgh; Glenn Robert; Fraser Macfarlane; Paul Bate; Olympia Kyriakidou; Richard Peacock
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2005-01-26       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Community Practice Implementation of a Self-administered Version of PREMM1,2,6 to Assess Risk for Lynch Syndrome.

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

4.  Uptake of genetic testing for germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in a predominantly Hispanic population.

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

5.  Yield of routine molecular analyses in colorectal cancer patients ≤70 years to detect underlying Lynch syndrome.

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

6.  The effect of referral for genetic counseling on genetic testing and surgical prevention in women at high risk for ovarian cancer: Results from a randomized controlled trial.

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

7.  Results of a population-based screening for hereditary breast cancer in a region of North-Central Italy: contribution of BRCA1/2 germ-line mutations.

Authors:  Ian J Seymour; Silvia Casadei; Valentina Zampiga; Simonetta Rosato; Rita Danesi; Emanuela Scarpi; Fabio Falcini; Miria Strada; Nori Morini; Carlo Naldoni; Dino Amadori; Daniele Calistri
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-12-20       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Expert and Advocacy Group Consensus Findings on the Horizon of Public Health Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Stephen M Modell; Karen Greendale; Toby Citrin; Sharon L R Kardia
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2016-01-27

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Population screening for BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutations in Ashkenazi Jews: proactive recruitment compared with self-referral.

Authors:  Sari Lieberman; Ariela Tomer; Avi Ben-Chetrit; Oded Olsha; Shalom Strano; Rachel Beeri; Sivan Koka; Hila Fridman; Karen Djemal; Itzhak Glick; Todd Zalut; Shlomo Segev; Miri Sklair; Bella Kaufman; Amnon Lahad; Aviad Raz; Ephrat Levy-Lahad
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  4 in total

1.  Screening for Individuals at Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Statewide Initiative, Georgia, 2012-2020.

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

Review 2.  A systematic review of theory-informed strategies used in interventions fostering family genetic risk communication.

Authors:  Jingsong Zhao; Yue Guan; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2022-03-11

3.  Prevalence of Americans reporting a family history of cancer indicative of increased cancer risk: Estimates from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

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

4.  Attitudes and interest in incorporating BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility testing into reproductive carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish men and women.

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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.