改善遗传性癌症综合征级联检测实施的策略:系统综述

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Jianbang Chiang, Ziyang Chua, Jia Ying Chan, Ashita Ashish Sule, Wan Hsein Loke, Elaine Lum, Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Nicholas Graves, Joanne Ngeow
{"title":"改善遗传性癌症综合征级联检测实施的策略:系统综述","authors":"Jianbang Chiang, Ziyang Chua, Jia Ying Chan, Ashita Ashish Sule, Wan Hsein Loke, Elaine Lum, Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Nicholas Graves, Joanne Ngeow","doi":"10.1038/s41525-024-00412-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Hereditary cancer syndromes constitute approximately 10% of all cancers. Cascade testing involves testing of at-risk relatives to determine if they carry the familial pathogenic variant. Despite growing efforts targeted at improving cascade testing uptake, current literature continues to reflect poor rates of uptake, typically below 30%. This study aims to systematically review current literature on intervention strategies to improve cascade testing, assess the quality of intervention descriptions and evaluate the implementation outcomes of listed interventions. We searched major databases using keywords and subject heading of “cascade testing”. Interventions proposed in each study were classified according to the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. Quality of intervention description was assessed using the TIDieR checklist, and evaluation of implementation outcomes was performed using Proctor’s Implementation Outcomes Framework. Improvements in rates of genetic testing uptake was seen in interventions across the different EPOC taxonomy strategies. The average TIDieR score was 7.3 out of 12. Items least reported include modifications (18.5%), plans to assess fidelity/adherence (7.4%) and actual assessment of fidelity/adherence (7.4%). An average of 2.9 out of 8 aspects of implementation outcomes were examined. The most poorly reported outcomes were cost, fidelity and sustainability, with only 3.7% of studies reporting them. Most interventions have demonstrated success in improving cascade testing uptake. Uptake of cascade testing was highest with delivery arrangement (68%). However, the quality of description of interventions and assessment of implementation outcomes are often suboptimal, hindering their replication and implementation downstream. Therefore, further adoption of standardized guidelines in reporting of interventions and formal assessment of implementation outcomes may help promote translation of these interventions into routine practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19273,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Genomic Medicine","volume":"165 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategies to improve implementation of cascade testing in hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Jianbang Chiang, Ziyang Chua, Jia Ying Chan, Ashita Ashish Sule, Wan Hsein Loke, Elaine Lum, Marcus Eng Hock Ong, Nicholas Graves, Joanne Ngeow\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41525-024-00412-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Hereditary cancer syndromes constitute approximately 10% of all cancers. Cascade testing involves testing of at-risk relatives to determine if they carry the familial pathogenic variant. Despite growing efforts targeted at improving cascade testing uptake, current literature continues to reflect poor rates of uptake, typically below 30%. This study aims to systematically review current literature on intervention strategies to improve cascade testing, assess the quality of intervention descriptions and evaluate the implementation outcomes of listed interventions. We searched major databases using keywords and subject heading of “cascade testing”. Interventions proposed in each study were classified according to the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. Quality of intervention description was assessed using the TIDieR checklist, and evaluation of implementation outcomes was performed using Proctor’s Implementation Outcomes Framework. Improvements in rates of genetic testing uptake was seen in interventions across the different EPOC taxonomy strategies. The average TIDieR score was 7.3 out of 12. Items least reported include modifications (18.5%), plans to assess fidelity/adherence (7.4%) and actual assessment of fidelity/adherence (7.4%). An average of 2.9 out of 8 aspects of implementation outcomes were examined. The most poorly reported outcomes were cost, fidelity and sustainability, with only 3.7% of studies reporting them. Most interventions have demonstrated success in improving cascade testing uptake. Uptake of cascade testing was highest with delivery arrangement (68%). However, the quality of description of interventions and assessment of implementation outcomes are often suboptimal, hindering their replication and implementation downstream. Therefore, further adoption of standardized guidelines in reporting of interventions and formal assessment of implementation outcomes may help promote translation of these interventions into routine practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NPJ Genomic Medicine\",\"volume\":\"165 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NPJ Genomic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41525-024-00412-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Genomic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41525-024-00412-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

遗传性癌症综合征约占所有癌症的 10%。级联检测包括对高危亲属进行检测,以确定他们是否携带家族致病变体。尽管越来越多的努力旨在提高级联检测的接受率,但目前的文献仍反映出接受率较低,通常低于 30%。本研究旨在系统回顾目前有关改善级联检测的干预策略的文献,评估干预措施描述的质量,并评价所列干预措施的实施结果。我们使用关键词和 "级联测试 "的主题词对主要数据库进行了检索。根据有效护理实践与组织(EPOC)分类法对每项研究中提出的干预措施进行了分类。干预措施描述的质量采用 TIDieR 核对表进行评估,实施结果的评估采用 Proctor 的实施结果框架。在不同 EPOC 分类策略的干预措施中,基因检测接受率均有所提高。TIDieR 的平均得分为 7.3 分(满分 12 分)。报告最少的项目包括修改(18.5%)、评估忠实度/坚持度的计划(7.4%)和忠实度/坚持度的实际评估(7.4%)。对实施结果的 8 个方面中的平均 2.9 个方面进行了检查。成本、忠实度和可持续性是报告最多的成果,只有 3.7% 的研究报告了这些成果。大多数干预措施都成功地提高了级联测试的吸收率。采用交付安排的级联测试接受率最高(68%)。然而,对干预措施的描述和实施结果的评估质量往往不尽如人意,阻碍了干预措施的推广和下游实施。因此,在报告干预措施和正式评估实施结果方面进一步采用标准化指南,可能有助于促进将这些干预措施转化为常规做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Strategies to improve implementation of cascade testing in hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review

Hereditary cancer syndromes constitute approximately 10% of all cancers. Cascade testing involves testing of at-risk relatives to determine if they carry the familial pathogenic variant. Despite growing efforts targeted at improving cascade testing uptake, current literature continues to reflect poor rates of uptake, typically below 30%. This study aims to systematically review current literature on intervention strategies to improve cascade testing, assess the quality of intervention descriptions and evaluate the implementation outcomes of listed interventions. We searched major databases using keywords and subject heading of “cascade testing”. Interventions proposed in each study were classified according to the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. Quality of intervention description was assessed using the TIDieR checklist, and evaluation of implementation outcomes was performed using Proctor’s Implementation Outcomes Framework. Improvements in rates of genetic testing uptake was seen in interventions across the different EPOC taxonomy strategies. The average TIDieR score was 7.3 out of 12. Items least reported include modifications (18.5%), plans to assess fidelity/adherence (7.4%) and actual assessment of fidelity/adherence (7.4%). An average of 2.9 out of 8 aspects of implementation outcomes were examined. The most poorly reported outcomes were cost, fidelity and sustainability, with only 3.7% of studies reporting them. Most interventions have demonstrated success in improving cascade testing uptake. Uptake of cascade testing was highest with delivery arrangement (68%). However, the quality of description of interventions and assessment of implementation outcomes are often suboptimal, hindering their replication and implementation downstream. Therefore, further adoption of standardized guidelines in reporting of interventions and formal assessment of implementation outcomes may help promote translation of these interventions into routine practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
NPJ Genomic Medicine
NPJ Genomic Medicine Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Molecular Biology
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
67
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Genomic Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing the most important scientific advances in all aspects of genomics and its application in the practice of medicine. The journal defines genomic medicine as "diagnosis, prognosis, prevention and/or treatment of disease and disorders of the mind and body, using approaches informed or enabled by knowledge of the genome and the molecules it encodes." Relevant and high-impact papers that encompass studies of individuals, families, or populations are considered for publication. An emphasis will include coupling detailed phenotype and genome sequencing information, both enabled by new technologies and informatics, to delineate the underlying aetiology of disease. Clinical recommendations and/or guidelines of how that data should be used in the clinical management of those patients in the study, and others, are also encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信