Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011 Aug;26(8):834-40.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1651-7. Epub 2011 Feb 11.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Susanne B Haga et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Aug.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Predicted probability of ordering a genomic risk test for a patient compared to ordering frequency of traditional genetic tests.

Comment in

References

    1. Janssens AC, Gwinn M, Bradley LA, Oostra BA, Duijn CM, Khoury MJ. A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. Am J Hum Genet. 2008;82(3):593–599. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.12.020. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mihaescu R, Hoek M, Sijbrands EJ, Uitterlinden AG, Witteman JC, Hofman A, et al. Evaluation of risk prediction updates from commercial genome-wide scans. Genet Med. 2009;11(8):588–594. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181b13a4f. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hunter DJ, Khoury MJ, Drazen JM. Letting the genome out of the bottle–will we get our wish? N Engl J Med. 2008;358(2):105–107. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0708162. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG. Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA. 2008;299(11):1320–1334. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.11.1320. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paynter NP, Chasman DI, Pare G, Buring JE, Cook NR, Miletich JP, et al. Association between a literature-based genetic risk score and cardiovascular events in women. JAMA. 2010;303(7):631–637. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.119. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types