Physician Experiences and Understanding of Genomic Sequencing in Oncology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weipert CM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5810555 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Physician Experiences and Understanding of Genomic Sequencing in Oncology.
Weipert Caroline M CM Ryan Kerry A KA Everett Jessica N JN Yashar Beverly M BM Chinnaiyan Arul M AM Scott Roberts J J De Vries Raymond R Zikmund-Fisher Brian J BJ Raymond Victoria M VM
Journal of genetic counseling 20170824 1
The amount of information produced by genomic sequencing is vast, technically complicated, and can be difficult to interpret. Appropriately tailoring genomic information for non-geneticists is an essential next step in the clinical use of genomic sequencing. To initiate development of a framework for genomic results communication, we conducted eighteen qualitative interviews with oncologists who had referred adult cancer patients to a matched tumor-normal tissue genomic sequencing study. In our ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo understand the deployment of physician assistants (PAs) in oncology. A recent analysis of the oncology workforce in the United States commissioned by ASCO predicted a significant shortage of providers by 2020.MethodsA descriptive study was undertaken using a Web-based questionnaire survey. Invited participants, including all PAs listed in the national PA database (n = 855) and all PAs at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX; n = 159), were mailed letters directing them to the Web-based survey.ResultsThe study produced a 30% response rate. A total of 186 PAs worked in medical oncology (the population of interest). Of the respondents, 80% were women, mean age was 36 years, average time employed as a PA was 9.5 years (6.5 years in oncology), 55% had obtained a master's degree, four had completed a postgraduate oncology program, 91% reported that direct mentorship by a supervising physician was very important in obtaining oncology-based knowledge, and 61% reported that becoming fully competent in the practice of oncology required 1 to 2 years. The majority of PAs (78.5%) worked 33 to 50 hours per week, and 56% of those reported working 41 to 50 hours per week. Three fourths (77%) wrote chemotherapy orders, most requiring physician co-signature, and 69% prescribed schedule III to V controlled substances. Additional data were gathered regarding clinical duties, research, and teaching.ConclusionOncology PAs are used in multiple medical settings, and many assume high-level responsibilities. Future research addressing function and factors that limit use of PAs may allow for improved organizational efficiency and enhancement in the delivery of health care.
| S-EPMC2805341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The incorporation of genomic testing to identify targetable somatic alterations and predisposing germline mutations into the clinical setting is becoming increasingly more common. Despite its potential usefulness, to the authors' knowledge physician confidence with regard to understanding and applying genomic testing remains unclear, particularly within the realm of pediatric oncology.Before initiating an institutional feasibility study regarding the integration of clinical genomic testing, the authors surveyed pediatric oncologists regarding their confidence around understanding of genomic testing, perceived usefulness of test results, preferences around the disclosure of germline test results, and possible risks and benefits of testing.Among survey respondents (52 of 88 contacted; response rate of 59%), only a minority were confident in interpreting, using, and discussing somatic (35%) or germline (27%) genomic test results. Providers who were confident in interpreting somatic results were significantly more likely to anticipate using the results to plan the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory cancers (P?=?.009). Similarly, providers who reported confidence in interpreting germline results were significantly more likely to discuss and use these results as part of clinical care (P<.0001). The majority of physicians (93%), regardless of their level of confidence, wanted to speak to a genetic counselor before disclosing germline test results.Among physicians at a comprehensive pediatric cancer center, confidence in the interpretation, use, and discussion of oncology-based genomic test results appears to be low, both in terms of somatic and germline testing. To optimize the integration of genomic sequencing into cancer care, methods must be developed to improve basic competencies around cancer-based genomic testing. Given the complexities surrounding variant interpretation and genotype-phenotype relationships, interdisciplinary collaborations are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2352-2359. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
| S-EPMC5710798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical and research settings are increasingly incorporating genomic sequencing (GS) technologies. Previous research has explored reasons for declining genetic testing and participation in genetic studies; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding why potential participants decline participation in GS research, and if any of these reasons are unique to GS. This knowledge is essential to promote informed decision-making and identify potential barriers to research participation and clinical implementation. We aggregated data from seven sites across the National Institutes of Health's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium on each project's procedures for recruitment, and rates of and reasons for decline. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The decline rate for enrollment at the seven CSER sites ranged from 12 to 64% (median 28%) and varied based on age and disease status. Projects differed in their protocols for approaching potential participants and obtaining informed consent. Reasons for declining GS research were reported for 1088 potential participants. Commonly cited reasons were similar to those reported for clinical single gene testing and non-GS genetic research. The most frequently cited reason for decline was study logistics (35%); thus, addressing logistical barriers to enrollment may positively impact GS study recruitment. Privacy and discrimination concerns were cited by 13% of decliners, highlighting the need for researchers and providers to focus educational efforts in this area. The potential psychological burden of pursuing and receiving results from GS and not wanting to receive secondary findings, a concern specific to GS, have been cited as concerns in the literature. A minority of potential participants cited psychological impact (8%) or not wanting to receive secondary findings (2%) as reasons for decline, suggesting that these concerns were not major barriers to participation in these GS studies. Further research is necessary to explore the impact, if any, of different participant groups or study protocols on rates of decline for GS studies. Future studies exploring GS implementation should consider using standardized collection methods to examine reasons for decline in larger populations and more diverse healthcare settings.
| S-EPMC6119550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysician assistants/associates (PAs) are a recent innovation in acute hospital teams in England and many other countries worldwide. Although existing evidence indicates generally high levels of patient satisfaction with their PA hospital encounters, little is known about the factors associated with this outcome. There is a lack of evidence on the process of PA-patient communication in hospital encounters and how this might influence satisfaction. This study therefore aimed to understand patients' satisfaction with PA acute hospital encounters through PA-patient communication experiences.MethodsA qualitative study was conducted among patients and representatives of patients seen by or receiving care from one of the PAs working in acute hospital services in England. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken face-to-face with study participants in the hospital setting and shortly after their PA encounter. Data were coded and analysed using thematic analysis. The study was framed within a theoretical model of core functions of medical encounter communication.ResultsFifteen patients and patient representatives who had experienced a PA encounter participated in interviews, across five hospitals in England. Four interrelated communication experiences were important to participants who were satisfied with the encounter in general: feeling trust and confidence in the relationship, sharing relevant and meaningful information, experiencing emotional care and support, and sharing discussion on illness management and treatment. However, many participants misconceived PAs to be doctors, raising a potential risk of reduced trust in the PA relationship and negative implications for satisfaction with their PA encounter. Participants considered it beneficial that patients be informed about the PA role to prevent confusion.ConclusionsPA encounters offer a constructive example of successful clinician-patient communication experiences in acute hospital encounters from the patient's perspective. Study participants were generally naïve to the PA role. Hospital services and organisations introducing these mid-level or advanced care practitioner roles should consider giving attention to informing patients about the roles.
| S-EPMC6712610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:As the clinical workforce becomes more diverse, physicians encounter patients who demean them based on social characteristics. Little is known about physicians' perspectives on these encounters and their effects. This knowledge would help develop policies and best practices for institutions and training programs. Objective:To describe the range and importance of encounters with biased patients and the barriers and facilitators to effective responses. Design, Setting, and Participants:This qualitative study recruited convenience samples of hospitalist attending physicians, internal medicine residents, and medical students from 3 campuses affiliated with 1 academic medical center. Data were collected from 50 individuals within 13 focus groups from May 9 through October 15, 2018. Focus groups were conducted using open-ended probes, audiotaped, and transcribed. Participants used their own definition of biased patient behavior. Each transcript was independently coded by at least 2 investigators. Data were analyzed from May 2018 through February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Major themes associated with types of encounter, importance to the participant, and barriers and facilitators to effective responses were abstracted through the constant comparative approach. Results:Overall, 50 individuals (11 hospitalists, 26 residents, and 13 students) participated; 24 (48%) were nonwhite. At total of 26 participants (52%) identified as women; 22 (44%), as men; and 2 (4%), as gender nonconforming. Reports of biased behavior ranged from patient refusal of care and explicit racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks to belittling compliments or jokes. Targeted physicians reported an emotional toll that included exhaustion, self-doubt, and cynicism. Nontargeted bystanders reported moral distress and uncertainty about how to respond. Participant responses ranged from withdrawal from clinical role to a heightened determination to provide standard of care. Barriers to effective responses included lack of skills, insufficient support from senior colleagues and the institution, and perception of lack of utility associated with responding. Participants expressed a need for training on dealing with biased patients and for clear institutional policies to guide responses. Conclusions and Relevance:In this qualitative study of physicians and medical students, encounters with demeaning patients ranged from refusal of care to belittling jokes and were highly challenging and painful. Addressing biased patient behavior will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospitals to create policies and trainings conducive to a clinical environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike.
| S-EPMC6820043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Current medical practice includes the application of genomic sequencing (GS) in clinical and research settings. Despite expanded use of this technology, the process of disclosure of genomic results to patients and research participants has not been thoroughly examined and there are no established best practices. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 genetic and non-genetic clinicians returning results of GS as part of the NIH funded Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium projects. Interviews focused on the logistics of sessions, participant/patient reactions and factors influencing them, how the sessions changed with experience, and resources and training recommended to return genomic results. RESULTS:The length of preparation and disclosure sessions varied depending on the type and number of results and their implications. Internal and external databases, online resources and result review meetings were used to prepare. Respondents reported that participants' reactions were variable and ranged from enthusiasm and relief to confusion and disappointment. Factors influencing reactions were types of results, expectations and health status. A recurrent challenge was managing inflated expectations about GS. Other challenges included returning multiple, unanticipated and/or uncertain results and navigating a rare diagnosis. Methods to address these challenges included traditional genetic counseling techniques and modifying practice over time in order to provide anticipatory guidance and modulate expectations. Respondents made recommendations to improve access to genomic resources and genetic referrals to prepare future providers as the uptake of GS increases in both genetic and non-genetic settings. CONCLUSIONS:These findings indicate that returning genomic results is similar to return of results in traditional genetic testing but is magnified by the additional complexity and potential uncertainty of the results. Managing patient expectations, initially identified in studies of informed consent, remains an ongoing challenge and highlights the need to address this issue throughout the testing process. The results of this study will help to guide future providers in the disclosure of genomic results and highlight educational needs and resources necessary to prepare providers. Future research on the patient experience, understanding and follow-up of recommendations is needed to more fully understand the disclosure process.
| S-EPMC5941324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pediatric oncologists' perspectives around returning and incorporating tumor and germline genomic sequencing (GS) results into cancer care are not well-described. To inform optimization of cancer genomics communication, we assessed oncologists' experiences with return of genomic results (ROR), including their preparation/readiness for ROR, collaboration with genetic counselors (GCs) during ROR, and perceived challenges. The BASIC3 study paired pediatric oncologists with GCs to return results to patients' families. We thematically analyzed 24 interviews with 12 oncologists at two post-ROR time points. Oncologists found pre-ROR meetings with GCs and geneticists essential to interpreting patients' reports and communicating results to families. Most oncologists took a collaborative ROR approach where they discussed tumor findings and GCs discussed germline findings. Oncologists perceived many roles for GCs during ROR, including answering families' questions and describing information in lay language. Challenges identified included conveying uncertain information in accessible language, limits of oncologists' genetics expertise, and navigating families' emotional responses. Oncologists emphasized how GCs' and geneticists' support was essential to ROR, especially for germline findings. GS can be successfully integrated into cancer care, but to account for the GC shortage, alternative ROR models and access to genetics resources will be needed to better support families and avoid burdening oncologists.
| S-EPMC8235493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic delays may not have significant prognostic implications in paediatric oncology, but psychological impacts remain understudied.MethodsInterviews exploring diagnostic experiences were conducted with childhood cancer survivors (n=19), parents (n=78) and siblings (n=15).ResultsMedian diagnostic time was 3 weeks. Participants described a mixture of rapid diagnoses (28.9%), plus delayed appraisal intervals (that is, parent- or patient-associated diagnostic delays; 40.0%) and diagnostic intervals (that is, healthcare-associated delays; 46.7%). Families experiencing delays described guilt and anger and deleterious impacts on the family-clinician relationship. Some believed delays impacted on treatment and prognosis.ConclusionsThe effect of the diagnostic experience can be considerable.
| S-EPMC4453595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBiased patient behavior negatively impacts resident well-being. Data on the prevalence and frequency of these encounters are lacking and are needed to guide the creation of institutional trainings and policies to support trainees.ObjectiveTo evaluate the frequency of resident experiences with and responses to a range of biased patient behaviors.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective survey was sent via email to 331 second- and third-year internal medicine residents from 3 academic medical centers in California and North Carolina. First-year residents were excluded owing to their limited interactions with patients at the time of participant recruitment. Data were collected from August 21 to November 25, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresDescriptive statistics were used to report the frequency of experience of various types of biased patient behavior, residents' responses, the factors impeding residents' responses, and residents' experiences and beliefs regarding training and policies.ResultsOverall, 232 of 331 residents (70%) participated; 116 (50%) were women; 116 of 247 (47%) were White (participants had the option of selecting >1 race/ethnicity); and 23 (10%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. The frequency of resident-reported experience of types of biased patient behaviors varied. The most common behaviors-belittling comments and assumption of nonphysician status-were reported to be experienced 1 or more times per week by 14% of residents (32 of 231) and 17% of residents (38 of 230), respectively. Women, Black or Latinx, and Asian residents reported experiencing biased behavior more frequently. Forty-five percent of Black or Latinx residents (17 of 38) encountered instances of explicit epithets or rejection of care. All 70 Asian residents reported experiencing inquiries into their ethnic origins. Most women residents (110 of 115 [96%]) experienced role questioning behaviors, and 87% (100 of 115) experienced sexual harassment. The need to prioritize clinical care and a sense of futility in responding were the most common factors (cited by 34% of residents [76 of 227] and 25% of residents [56 of 227], respectively) significantly impeding responses to biased behaviors. Eighty-five percent of residents (191 of 226) never reported incidents to their institution. Eighty-nine percent of residents (206 of 232) identified training and policies as necessary or very necessary.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study suggests that biased patient behavior is experienced frequently by internal medicine residents. Non-White and women residents reported experiencing a disproportionate burden of these incidents. Residents' responses rarely included institutional involvement. Residency programs and health care systems should prioritize training and policies to address biased patient behavior and support affected residents.
| S-EPMC7684448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Developments in genomics, including next-generation sequencing technologies, are expected to enable a more personalized approach to clinical care, with improved risk stratification and treatment selection. In oncology, personalized medicine is particularly advanced and increasingly used to identify oncogenic variants in tumor tissue that predict responsiveness to specific drugs. Yet, the translational research needed to validate these technologies will be conducted in patients with late-stage cancer and is expected to produce results of variable clinical significance and incidentally identify genetic risks. To explore the experiential context in which much of personalized cancer care will be developed and evaluated, we conducted a qualitative interview study alongside a pilot feasibility study of targeted DNA sequencing of metastatic tumor biopsies in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. We recruited 29/73 patients and 14/17 physicians; transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analyzed for thematic patterns using an interpretive descriptive approach. Patient hopes of benefit from research participation were enhanced by the promise of novel and targeted treatment but challenged by non-findings or by limited access to relevant trials. Family obligations informed a willingness to receive genetic information, which was perceived as burdensome given disease stage or as inconsequential given faced challenges. Physicians were optimistic about long-term potential but conservative about immediate benefits and mindful of elevated patient expectations; consent and counseling processes were expected to mitigate challenges from incidental findings. These findings suggest the need for information and decision tools to support physicians in communicating realistic prospects of benefit, and for cautious approaches to the generation of incidental genetic information.
| S-EPMC3925281 | biostudies-literature