Dataset Information

Genomic risk profiling: attitudes and use in personal and clinical care of primary care physicians who offer risk profiling.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Genomic risk profiling involves the analysis of genetic variations linked through statistical associations to a range of disease states. There is considerable controversy as to how, and even whether, to incorporate these tests into routine medical care.

Objective

To assess physician attitudes and uptake of genomic risk profiling among an 'early adopter' practice group.

Design

We surveyed members of MDVIP, a national group of primary care physicians (PCPs), currently offering genomic risk profiling as part of their practice.

Population

All physicians in the MDVIP network (N = 356)

Results

We obtained a 44% response rate. One third of respondents had ordered a test for themselves and 42% for a patient. The odds of having ordered personal testing were 10.51-fold higher for those who felt well-informed about genomic risk testing (p < 0.0001). Of those who had not ordered a test for themselves, 60% expressed concerns for patients regarding discrimination by life and long-term/disability insurers, 61% about test cost, and 62% about clinical utility. The odds of ordering testing for their patients was 8.29-fold higher among respondents who had ordered testing for themselves (p < 0.0001). Of those who had ordered testing for patients, concerns about insurance coverage (p = 0.014) and uncertain clinical utility (p = 0.034) were associated with a lower relative frequency of intention to order testing again in the future.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that respondent familiarity was a key predictor of physician ordering behavior and clinical utility was a primary concern for genomic risk profiling. Educational and interpretive support may enhance uptake of genomic risk profiling.

SUBMITTER: Haga SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3138989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMore conservative prescribing has the potential to reduce adverse drug events and patient harm and cost; however, no method exists defining the extent to which individual clinicians prescribe conservatively. One potential domain is prescribing a more limited number of drugs. Personal formularies-defined as the number and mix of unique, newly initiated drugs prescribed by a physician-may enable comparisons among clinicians, practices, and institutions.ObjectivesTo develop a method of defining primary care physicians' personal formularies and examine how they differ among primary care physicians at 4 institutions; evaluate associations between personal formularies and patient, physician, and practice site characteristics; and empirically derive and examine the variability of the top 200 core drugs prescribed at the 4 sites.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at 4 US health care systems among 4655 internal and family medicine physicians and 4 930 707 patients who had at least 1 visit to these physicians between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018.ExposuresPersonal formulary size was defined as the number of unique, newly initiated drugs.Main outcomes and measuresPersonal formulary size and drugs used, physician and patient characteristics, core drugs, and analysis of selected drug classes.ResultsThe study population included 4655 primary care physicians (2274 women [48.9%]; mean [SD] age, 48.5 [4.4] years) and 4 930 707 patients (16.5% women; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [8.3] years). There were 41 378 903 outpatient prescriptions written, of which 9 496 766 (23.0%) were new starts. Institution median personal formulary size ranged from 150 (interquartile range, 82.0-212.0) to 296 (interquartile range, 230.0-347.0) drugs. In multivariable modeling, personal formulary size was significantly associated with panel size (total number of unique patients with face-to-face encounters during the study period; 1.2 medications per 100 patients), physician's total number of encounters (5.7 drugs per 10% increase), and physician's sex (-6.2 drugs per 100 patients for female physicians). There were 1527 unique, newly prescribed drugs across the 4 sites. Fewer than half the drugs (626 [41.0%]) were used at every site. Physicians' prescribing of drugs from a pooled core list varied from 0% to 100% of their prescriptions.Conclusions and relevancePersonal formularies, measured at the level of individual physicians and institutions, reveal variability in size and mix of drugs. Similarly, defining a list of commonly prescribed core drugs in primary care revealed interphysician and interinstitutional differences. Personal formularies and core medication lists enable comparisons and may identify outliers and opportunities for safer and more appropriate prescribing.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs). DESIGN:Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded. METHODS:Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach. RESULTS:Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice. CONCLUSIONS:A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.

Project description:In this era of clinical genomics, the accumulation of knowledge of pharmacogenomics (PGx) is rising dramatically and attempts to utilize it in clinical practice are also increasing. However, this advanced knowledge and information have not yet been sufficiently utilized in the clinical field due to various barriers including physician factors. This study was conducted to evaluate the attitudes of physicians to PGx services by providing them their own genomic data analysis report focusing on PGx. We also tried to evaluate the clinical applicability of whole exome sequencing (WES)-based functional PGx test. In total 88 physicians participated in the study from September 2015 to August 2016. Physicians who agreed to participate in the study were asked to complete a pre-test survey evaluating their knowledge of and attitude toward clinical genomics including PGx. Only those who completed the pre-test survey proceeded to WES and were provided with a personal PGx analysis report in an offline group meeting. Physicians who received these PGx reports were asked to complete a follow-up survey within two weeks. We then analyzed changes in their knowledge and attitude after reviewing their own PGx analysis results through differences in their pre-test and post-test survey responses. In total, 70 physicians (79.5%) completed the pre-test and post-test surveys and attended an off-line seminar to review their personal PGx reports. After physicians reviewed the report, their perception of and attitude towards the PGx domain and genomics significantly changed. Physician' awareness of the likelihood of occurrence of adverse drug reactions and genetic contribution was also changed significantly. Overall, physicians were very positive about the value and potential of the PGx test but maintained a conservative stance on its actual clinical use. Results revealed that physicians' perception and attitude to the utility of PGx testing was significantly changed after reviewing their own WES results.