TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical genomic testing
T2 - what matters to key stakeholders?
AU - Best, Stephanie
AU - Stark, Zornitza
AU - Phillips, Peta
AU - Wu, You
AU - Long, Janet C.
AU - Taylor, Natalie
AU - Braithwaite, Jeffrey
AU - Christodoulou, John
AU - Goranitis, Ilias
PY - 2020/7
Y1 - 2020/7
N2 - Beyond a narrow focus on cost and outcomes, robust evidence of what is valued in genomic medicine is scarce. We gathered views on value from key stakeholders (clinical genomic staff, operational genomic staff and community representatives) in relation to three testing contexts (General Healthcare, Acute Care and Neurodevelopmental Conditions). We conducted an iterative focus group in three stages over a week using a multiphase mixed methods study, i.e. quantitative ratings and qualitative discussion. For each testing context, the characteristics of genomic testing were generated and ranked by the group using a co-productive approach. Up to 17 characteristics were identified in one scenario with several characteristics featuring in all three testing contexts. The likelihood of getting an answer was consistently reported as most highly valued, followed by the potential for the test to impact on clinical management (or wellbeing/health for Neurodevelopmental Conditions). Risk of discrimination did not feature highly across the different settings (and not at all in Acute Care). While cost was an issue in the general health setting, it was one of the least-valued characteristics in the other two testing contexts. In conclusion, co-producing an understanding of what is valued in different testing contexts, and identifying the areas of differences or commonalities, is important to maximise value provision and inform future policy to ensure that clinical genomic services meet the needs of the community and service providers.
AB - Beyond a narrow focus on cost and outcomes, robust evidence of what is valued in genomic medicine is scarce. We gathered views on value from key stakeholders (clinical genomic staff, operational genomic staff and community representatives) in relation to three testing contexts (General Healthcare, Acute Care and Neurodevelopmental Conditions). We conducted an iterative focus group in three stages over a week using a multiphase mixed methods study, i.e. quantitative ratings and qualitative discussion. For each testing context, the characteristics of genomic testing were generated and ranked by the group using a co-productive approach. Up to 17 characteristics were identified in one scenario with several characteristics featuring in all three testing contexts. The likelihood of getting an answer was consistently reported as most highly valued, followed by the potential for the test to impact on clinical management (or wellbeing/health for Neurodevelopmental Conditions). Risk of discrimination did not feature highly across the different settings (and not at all in Acute Care). While cost was an issue in the general health setting, it was one of the least-valued characteristics in the other two testing contexts. In conclusion, co-producing an understanding of what is valued in different testing contexts, and identifying the areas of differences or commonalities, is important to maximise value provision and inform future policy to ensure that clinical genomic services meet the needs of the community and service providers.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85079465535&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41431-020-0576-1
DO - 10.1038/s41431-020-0576-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 32024983
AN - SCOPUS:85079465535
SN - 1018-4813
VL - 28
SP - 866
EP - 873
JO - European Journal of Human Genetics
JF - European Journal of Human Genetics
IS - 7
ER -