医护人员对青光眼多基因风险检测的认识和态度。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Georgina L Hollitt, Miriam C Keane, Thi T Nguyen, Mark M Hassall, Owen M Siggs, Jamie E Craig, Emmanuelle Souzeau
{"title":"医护人员对青光眼多基因风险检测的认识和态度。","authors":"Georgina L Hollitt, Miriam C Keane, Thi T Nguyen, Mark M Hassall, Owen M Siggs, Jamie E Craig, Emmanuelle Souzeau","doi":"10.1111/ceo.14438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective clinical implementation of polygenic risk testing for glaucoma relies on healthcare professionals' attitudes and knowledge of the test. Given the emerging applications of the test, it will likely impact a range of healthcare professionals and will require competency in polygenic risk scores concepts for all those involved in patient care. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess healthcare professionals' views towards polygenic testing for glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to healthcare professionals via relevant professional organisations in Australia. The questionnaire assessed experience and confidence with genetic testing, glaucoma and genetic knowledge, recommendations for the tests, and factors affecting the decision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 94 participants completed the questionnaire. The sample was composed of ophthalmologists (36%), optometrists (21%), orthoptists (17%), general practitioners (16%) and clinical geneticists/genetic counsellors (10%). Although familiarity with polygenic risk scores for glaucoma was low overall (11%), the majority reported a positive attitude towards recommending testing based on known risk factors such as family history (91%) and older age (57%). Over 95% indicated that ophthalmologists would be the most appropriate group to order polygenic risk testing and communicate results. The majority felt they would benefit from more training on polygenic risk scores (93%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicated that multiple groups of healthcare professionals were neither familiar nor confident with the concept of glaucoma polygenic risk testing, and identified training and education needs to support the implementation of testing into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":55253,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitudes towards polygenic risk testing for glaucoma.\",\"authors\":\"Georgina L Hollitt, Miriam C Keane, Thi T Nguyen, Mark M Hassall, Owen M Siggs, Jamie E Craig, Emmanuelle Souzeau\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ceo.14438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective clinical implementation of polygenic risk testing for glaucoma relies on healthcare professionals' attitudes and knowledge of the test. Given the emerging applications of the test, it will likely impact a range of healthcare professionals and will require competency in polygenic risk scores concepts for all those involved in patient care. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess healthcare professionals' views towards polygenic testing for glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to healthcare professionals via relevant professional organisations in Australia. The questionnaire assessed experience and confidence with genetic testing, glaucoma and genetic knowledge, recommendations for the tests, and factors affecting the decision.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 94 participants completed the questionnaire. The sample was composed of ophthalmologists (36%), optometrists (21%), orthoptists (17%), general practitioners (16%) and clinical geneticists/genetic counsellors (10%). Although familiarity with polygenic risk scores for glaucoma was low overall (11%), the majority reported a positive attitude towards recommending testing based on known risk factors such as family history (91%) and older age (57%). Over 95% indicated that ophthalmologists would be the most appropriate group to order polygenic risk testing and communicate results. The majority felt they would benefit from more training on polygenic risk scores (93%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicated that multiple groups of healthcare professionals were neither familiar nor confident with the concept of glaucoma polygenic risk testing, and identified training and education needs to support the implementation of testing into clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55253,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14438\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14438","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:青光眼多基因风险测试在临床上的有效实施取决于医护人员对测试的态度和知识。鉴于该测试的新兴应用,它很可能会影响到一系列医护专业人员,并要求所有参与患者护理的人员都能掌握多基因风险评分的概念。据我们所知,这是第一项评估医疗保健专业人员对青光眼多基因测试看法的研究:方法:我们通过澳大利亚的相关专业组织向医护人员发放了一份在线横截面问卷。问卷调查了医护人员在基因检测方面的经验和信心、青光眼和基因知识、对检测的建议以及影响决定的因素:共有 94 名参与者完成了问卷调查。样本中包括眼科医生(36%)、验光师(21%)、视力矫正师(17%)、全科医生(16%)和临床遗传学家/遗传咨询师(10%)。虽然对青光眼多基因风险评分的熟悉程度总体较低(11%),但大多数人表示对根据已知风险因素(如家族史(91%)和年龄较大(57%))建议进行检测持积极态度。超过 95% 的人表示,眼科医生是最适合进行多基因风险检测和通报检测结果的群体。大多数人认为他们将受益于更多有关多基因风险评分的培训(93%):我们的研究结果表明,多类医护专业人员对青光眼多基因风险检测的概念既不熟悉也没有信心,并确定了培训和教育需求,以支持在临床实践中实施检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitudes towards polygenic risk testing for glaucoma.

Background: Effective clinical implementation of polygenic risk testing for glaucoma relies on healthcare professionals' attitudes and knowledge of the test. Given the emerging applications of the test, it will likely impact a range of healthcare professionals and will require competency in polygenic risk scores concepts for all those involved in patient care. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess healthcare professionals' views towards polygenic testing for glaucoma.

Methods: An online cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed to healthcare professionals via relevant professional organisations in Australia. The questionnaire assessed experience and confidence with genetic testing, glaucoma and genetic knowledge, recommendations for the tests, and factors affecting the decision.

Results: A total of 94 participants completed the questionnaire. The sample was composed of ophthalmologists (36%), optometrists (21%), orthoptists (17%), general practitioners (16%) and clinical geneticists/genetic counsellors (10%). Although familiarity with polygenic risk scores for glaucoma was low overall (11%), the majority reported a positive attitude towards recommending testing based on known risk factors such as family history (91%) and older age (57%). Over 95% indicated that ophthalmologists would be the most appropriate group to order polygenic risk testing and communicate results. The majority felt they would benefit from more training on polygenic risk scores (93%).

Conclusions: Our findings indicated that multiple groups of healthcare professionals were neither familiar nor confident with the concept of glaucoma polygenic risk testing, and identified training and education needs to support the implementation of testing into clinical 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
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original research and reviews dealing with all aspects of clinical practice and research which are international in scope and application. CEO recognises the importance of collaborative research and welcomes papers that have a direct influence on ophthalmic practice but are not unique to ophthalmology.
×
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