Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings
Do you wish to request the book?
Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings
2018
Overview
Purpose
Secondary findings from genomic sequencing are becoming more common. We compared how health-care providers with and without specialized genetics training anticipated responding to different types of secondary findings.
Methods
Providers with genomic sequencing experience reviewed five secondary-findings reports and reported attitudes and potential clinical follow-up. Analyses compared genetic specialists and physicians without specialized genetics training, and examined how responses varied by secondary finding.
Results
Genetic specialists scored higher than other providers on four-point scales assessing understandings of reports (3.89 vs. 3.42,
p
= 0.0002), and lower on scales assessing reporting obligations (2.60 vs. 3.51,
p
< 0.0001) and burdens of responding (1.73 vs. 2.70,
p
< 0.0001). Nearly all attitudes differed between findings, although genetic specialists were more likely to assert that laboratories had no obligations when findings had less-established actionability (
p
< 0.0001 in interaction tests). The importance of reviewing personal and family histories, documenting findings, learning more about the variant, and recommending familial discussions also varied according to finding (all
p
< 0.0001).
Conclusion
Genetic specialists felt better prepared to respond to secondary findings than providers without specialized genetics training, but perceived fewer obligations for laboratories to report them, and the two groups anticipated similar clinical responses. Findings may inform development of targeted education and support.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group US,Elsevier Limited
Subject
