Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Genetic Services”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2025

The development and usability of 'The Genetics Navigator': a digital solution for adult and paediatric clinical genetics services.

Clinical genetic services address diverse genetic testing needs, but there is no comprehensive digital solution to meet this variety. We aimed to develop and test the usability of the Genetics Navigator (GN), a platform designed to enhance genetic services for paediatric and adult patients. The GN prototype was created with input from a patient and clinician advisory board, informed by prior research. Usability testing involved genetics patients (N = 14), parents of paediatric patients (N = 4), and the general public (N = 10). Participants provided feedback using the 'think aloud' method when using the platform. We used the System Usability Scale (SUS) for quantitative evaluation. Qualitative data were coded by platform section, item, and identified key areas for improvement. Building on the Genetics Adviser platform, we added video and written content for various genetic conditions and patient groups, including pre-test education, counselling, decision support, history collection, post-test result disclosure, and management. Key feedback during rounds of usability testing emphasized the need for a supportive design, seamless workflow, and engaging experience of the tool. The tool was modified to reflect the feedback, and the GN achieved an average SUS score of 87.7 ± 10.9 (N = 28), indicating above-average usability. Future research will evaluate its clinical and cost-effectiveness in a randomized trial.

Humans↗
PubMed1975

The center-satellite system for the wide-scale distribution of genetic counseling services.

A 6-year experience with a center-satellite system for the provision of comprehensive genetic counseling services to a large geographical area is described. A series of 12 satellite genetic clinics established throughout northern and central California have brought genetic counseling services to within a 2-hour drive for most patients. These satellite clinics are largely organized by local groups (such as National Foundation-March of Dimes chapters and county health departments) but are backed by the personnel and resources of the center at the University of California, San Francisco. Assistance is generally provided by county public health nurses who collect medical records from referring physicians and pedigrees from the family. Specimens for cytogenetic or special biochemical studies are brought back to the center, but, if possible, other laboratory determinations, radiological investigations, and specialty consultations are obtained locally. Follow-up counseling may be provided by the public health nurses, and a written summary is sent to each patient or family. The socioeconomic spectrum of the patients seen at the satellite clinics is much broader than at the central clinic, and the establishment of a satellite clinic results in a great increase in the number of cases seen from the area in which it is located. Physician time per patient and cost of services per patient are substantially the same in both central and satellite clinics. Based on population figures applicable to the state of California, it is estimated that approximately 60-70 comprehensive counseling centers, each with up to 15 satellites, could adequately provide for the foreseeable genetic counseling needs of the United States.

Ambulatory Care Facilities↗
PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented and models of care are not defined. To understand current genetics care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal Investigators (PIs) of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was collected from the 24 PIs in advance to define current care models by evaluating which Heart Failure Society of America-recommended genetic evaluation components are conducted, by whom, and time required. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the PI responses: 1 - Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient), 2 - Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8), 3 - Externally Sourced (17%, n=4), and 4 - Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than Model 4 (9.8±2.9; 1 vs 4: p=0.027; 2 vs 4, p=0.023). Notably, 88% of PIs used genetic information for treatment decisions, including ICD placement (83%; n=20) or cardiac transplant (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor on the HF team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, even though all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder implementing genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

clinical genetics↗
PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented, and models of care are not well defined. To understand current genetic care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal investigators of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was conducted among the 24 principal investigators in advance to define current care models by evaluating which genetic evaluation components recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America were conducted, by whom, and the time required for each component. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the principal investigator responses: model 1: Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient); model 2: Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8); model 3: Externally Sourced (17%, n=4); and model 4: Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than model 4 (9.8±2.9; model 1 versus model 4; P=0.027; model 2 versus model 4; P=0.023). Notably, 88% of principal investigators used genetic information for treatment decisions, including implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement (83%; n=20) and cardiac transplantation (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor as part of the heart failure team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, although all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder the implementation of genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

cardiomyopathy, dilated↗
PubMed2025

Barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical genome-wide sequencing: A scoping review of the global landscape.

PURPOSE: The global demand for clinical genome-wide sequencing (GWS) continues to grow. This study describes the global landscape of genetic service delivery and the barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical GWS. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using MEDLINE and Embase (January 2009-July 2025) to identify studies related to genetic service delivery, exome and genome sequencing, and implementation. RESULTS: Ninety-six articles representing 35 countries were analyzed using the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The most frequently reported barriers were within the outer setting: insufficient Local Conditions (ie, genetics workforce shortage; 54/96, 56%), limited Financing (29/96, 30%), and lack of national Policies and Laws (regulations) for genomic testing (20/96, 21%). Negative Local Attitudes about genomics were reported as a barrier in 11 South American, Middle Eastern, Asian, and African countries. Identified outer setting facilitators included Partnerships and Connections between interested parties (eg, government, academic institutions; 14/96, 15%) and dedicated Funding for national genomics initiatives (6/96, 6%). CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified common barriers to implementing GWS across countries with varying capacities for delivering these services. Findings may help countries to anticipate barriers, leverage facilitators, and develop strategies for implementing genomic testing and services.

Humans↗
PubMed2025

Mainstreaming of clinical genetic testing: A conceptual framework.

PURPOSE: Demand for genetic testing is increasing across medicine, whereas the genetics workforce remains stable. In response, mainstreaming models are being introduced, in which nongeneticist clinicians are increasingly involved in the genetic testing pathway. Because a standardized approach would facilitate evaluation and optimal patient care, a unified framework is warranted. METHODS: Through a focus group with clinical genetics experts, a conceptual framework for the mainstreaming of clinical genetic testing is proposed. Through a consensus process, experts elucidated the steps in the diagnostic care pathway and defined a set of variables that influence which mainstreaming model is best suited to specific patient care scenarios. RESULTS: A total of 35 individuals representing 20 distinct clinical genetics services and all Canadian provinces participated in the development of the framework. The framework describes 4 generalizable mainstreaming models of care, each with varying levels of involvement of the clinical genetics service in the diagnostic care pathway. CONCLUSION: This framework will help guide clinical teams in the design and evaluation of mainstreaming efforts. It is critical that these programs are evaluated and shared in a standardized way so that we can implement strategies that allow optimal utilization of genetics resources and improve patient care.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Pilot Evaluation of a Digital Pretest Education Platform for Genomic Counseling: Perspectives of Health Care Providers and Patients.

Traditional in-person consultations for genetic services create access barriers. We hypothesized that the Genetics Adviser platform-a web-based digital platform delivering clinical genomic services-could reduce these barriers. Focusing on pretest education and counseling, we tested a pilot version of the platform in medical genetics and pediatric endocrinology group practices. The multimethod design consisted of quantitative patient and caregiver surveys, Google Analytics data, and qualitative healthcare provider interviews. Surveys included validated measures of acceptability and empowerment. Transcribed interviews were thematically coded and analyzed using NVivo. Of the 102 patients and caregivers targeted for this study, 85/102 (83%) accessed the platform, 71/102 (70%) proceeded beyond the landing page, and 60/102 (59%) completed the post-module survey. Users expressed high confidence in genetic understanding and empowerment (Genomics Outcome Scale [GOS]: 77/100), and providers noted potential benefits and highlighted technological and content-related limitations. Further research is needed to validate effectiveness across diverse populations and to evaluate long-term impacts on patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Humans↗