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
. 2019 Jun 19:10:552.
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00552. eCollection 2019.

Current Genetic Service Delivery Models for the Provision of Genetic Testing in Europe: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Brigid Unim  1 , Erica Pitini  1 , Tyra Lagerberg  2 , Giovanna Adamo  1 , Corrado De Vito  1 , Carolina Marzuillo  1 , Paolo Villari  1
Affiliations

Current Genetic Service Delivery Models for the Provision of Genetic Testing in Europe: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Brigid Unim et al. Front Genet. .

Abstract

Background: The provision of genetic services, along with research in the fields of genomics and genetics, has evolved in recent years to meet the increasing demand of consumers interested in prediction of genetic diseases and various inherited traits. The aim of this study is to evaluate genetic services in order to identify and classify delivery models for the provision of genetic testing in European and in extra-European countries. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using five electronic resources. Inclusion criteria were that studies be published in English or Italian during the period 2000-2015 and carried out in European or extra-European countries (Canada, USA, Australia, or New Zealand). Results: 148 genetic programs were identified in 117 articles and were delivered mostly in the UK (59, 40%), USA (35, 24%) or Australia (16, 11%). The programs were available nationally (66; 45%), regionally (49; 33%) or in urban areas (21, 14%). Ninety-six (64%) of the programs were integrated into healthcare systems, 48 (32.21%) were pilot programs and five (3%) were direct-to-consumer genetic services. The genetic tests offered were mainly for BRCA1/2 (59, 40%), Lynch syndrome (23, 16%), and newborn screening (18, 12%). Healthcare professionals with different backgrounds are increasingly engaged in the provision of genetic services. Based on which healthcare professionals have prominent roles in the respective patient care pathways, genetic programs were classified into five models: (i) the geneticists model; (ii) the primary care model; (iii) the medical specialist model; (iv) the population screening programs model; and (v) the direct-to-consumer model. Conclusions: New models of genetic service delivery are currently under development worldwide to address the increasing demand for accessible and affordable services. These models require the integration of genetics into all medical specialties, collaboration among different healthcare professionals, and the redistribution of professional roles. An appropriate model for genetic service provision in a specific setting should ideally be defined according to the type of healthcare system, the genetic test provided within a genetic program, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Only applications with proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness should be implemented in healthcare systems and made available to all citizens.

Keywords: delivery model; genetic program; genetic services; genetic test; predictive testing; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Geographical distribution of the genetic programs identified through the literature review.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Model I: genetic services led by geneticists. Geographical distribution of the genetic tests.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Model II: primary care model. Geographical distribution of the genetic tests.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Model III: medical specialist model. Geographical distribution of the genetic tests.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Model IV: genetic services integrated into population screening programs. Geographical distribution of the genetic tests.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aarden E., Van Hoyweghen I., Horstman K. (2011). The paradox of public health genomics: Definition and diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia in three European countries. Scand. J. Public Health 39, 634–639. 10.1177/1403494811414241 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allen H., Maxwell L., Dibley N., Bradley A., Baker R., Thomas P., et al. . (2007). Patient perspectives on the Poole PCT cancer genetics service. Fam. Cancer 6, 231–239. 10.1007/s10689-007-9135-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Amato A., Cappabianca M. P., Lerone M., Colosimo A., Grisanti P., Ponzini D., et al. . (2014). Carrier screening for inherited haemoglobin disorders among secondary school students and young adults in Latium, Italy. J. Community Genet. 5, 265–268. 10.1007/s12687-013-0171-z - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anton-Culver H., Ziogas A., Bowen D., Finkelstein D., Griffin C., Hanson J., et al. . (2003). The cancer genetics network: recruitment results and pilot studies. Community Genet. 6, 171–177. 10.1159/000078165 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bach G., Tomczak J., Risch N., Ekstein J. (2001). Tay-Sachs screening in the Jewish Ashkenazi population: DNA testing is the preferred procedure. Am. J. Med. Genet. 99, 70–75. 10.1002/1096-8628(20010215)99:1<70::AID-AJMG1120>3.0.CO;2-0 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types