Sarah Casauria, Felicity Collins, Susan M White, Paul Konings, Mathew Wallis, Nicholas Pachter, Julie McGaughran, Christopher Barnett, Stephanie Best
{"title":"评估澳大利亚未满足的基因组测试需求:地理空间探索。","authors":"Sarah Casauria, Felicity Collins, Susan M White, Paul Konings, Mathew Wallis, Nicholas Pachter, Julie McGaughran, Christopher Barnett, Stephanie Best","doi":"10.1038/s41431-024-01746-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The role of genomic testing in rare disease clinical management is growing. However, geographical and socioeconomic factors contribute to inequitable uptake of testing. Geographical investigations of genomic testing across Australia have not been undertaken. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the geospatial distribution of genomic testing nationally between remoteness areas, and areas of varying socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage. We requested patient postcodes, age, and test type from genomic testing records from seven Australian laboratories for a 6-month period between August 2019 and June 2022. Postcode data were aggregated to Local Government Areas (LGAs) and visualised geospatially. Data were further aggregated to Remoteness Areas and Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) quintiles for exploratory analysis. 11,706 records were eligible for analysis. Most tests recorded were paediatric (n = 8358, 71.4%). Microarray was the most common test captured (n = 8186, 69.9%). The median number of tests per LGA was 5.4 (IQR 1.0-21.0). Fifty-seven (10.4%) LGAs had zero tests recorded. Remoteness level was negatively correlated with number of tests across LGAs (rho = -0.781, p < 0.001). However, remote areas recorded the highest rate of testing per 100,000 populations. SEIFA score positively correlated with number of tests across LGAs (rho = 0.386, p < 0.001). The third SEIFA quintile showed the highest rate of testing per 100,000 populations. Our study establishes a foundation for ongoing assessment of genomic testing accessibility and equity and highlights the need to improve access to genomic testing for patients who are disadvantaged geographically or socioeconomically. Future research should include additional laboratories to achieve a larger representation of genomic testing rates nationally.</p>","PeriodicalId":12016,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Human Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the unmet needs of genomic testing in Australia: a geospatial exploration.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Casauria, Felicity Collins, Susan M White, Paul Konings, Mathew Wallis, Nicholas Pachter, Julie McGaughran, Christopher Barnett, Stephanie Best\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41431-024-01746-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The role of genomic testing in rare disease clinical management is growing. However, geographical and socioeconomic factors contribute to inequitable uptake of testing. Geographical investigations of genomic testing across Australia have not been undertaken. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the geospatial distribution of genomic testing nationally between remoteness areas, and areas of varying socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage. We requested patient postcodes, age, and test type from genomic testing records from seven Australian laboratories for a 6-month period between August 2019 and June 2022. Postcode data were aggregated to Local Government Areas (LGAs) and visualised geospatially. Data were further aggregated to Remoteness Areas and Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) quintiles for exploratory analysis. 11,706 records were eligible for analysis. Most tests recorded were paediatric (n = 8358, 71.4%). Microarray was the most common test captured (n = 8186, 69.9%). The median number of tests per LGA was 5.4 (IQR 1.0-21.0). Fifty-seven (10.4%) LGAs had zero tests recorded. Remoteness level was negatively correlated with number of tests across LGAs (rho = -0.781, p < 0.001). However, remote areas recorded the highest rate of testing per 100,000 populations. SEIFA score positively correlated with number of tests across LGAs (rho = 0.386, p < 0.001). The third SEIFA quintile showed the highest rate of testing per 100,000 populations. Our study establishes a foundation for ongoing assessment of genomic testing accessibility and equity and highlights the need to improve access to genomic testing for patients who are disadvantaged geographically or socioeconomically. Future research should include additional laboratories to achieve a larger representation of genomic testing rates nationally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Human Genetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Human Genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01746-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Human Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01746-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the unmet needs of genomic testing in Australia: a geospatial exploration.
The role of genomic testing in rare disease clinical management is growing. However, geographical and socioeconomic factors contribute to inequitable uptake of testing. Geographical investigations of genomic testing across Australia have not been undertaken. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the geospatial distribution of genomic testing nationally between remoteness areas, and areas of varying socioeconomic advantage and disadvantage. We requested patient postcodes, age, and test type from genomic testing records from seven Australian laboratories for a 6-month period between August 2019 and June 2022. Postcode data were aggregated to Local Government Areas (LGAs) and visualised geospatially. Data were further aggregated to Remoteness Areas and Socio-Economic Index for Areas (SEIFA) quintiles for exploratory analysis. 11,706 records were eligible for analysis. Most tests recorded were paediatric (n = 8358, 71.4%). Microarray was the most common test captured (n = 8186, 69.9%). The median number of tests per LGA was 5.4 (IQR 1.0-21.0). Fifty-seven (10.4%) LGAs had zero tests recorded. Remoteness level was negatively correlated with number of tests across LGAs (rho = -0.781, p < 0.001). However, remote areas recorded the highest rate of testing per 100,000 populations. SEIFA score positively correlated with number of tests across LGAs (rho = 0.386, p < 0.001). The third SEIFA quintile showed the highest rate of testing per 100,000 populations. Our study establishes a foundation for ongoing assessment of genomic testing accessibility and equity and highlights the need to improve access to genomic testing for patients who are disadvantaged geographically or socioeconomically. Future research should include additional laboratories to achieve a larger representation of genomic testing rates nationally.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Human Genetics is the official journal of the European Society of Human Genetics, publishing high-quality, original research papers, short reports and reviews in the rapidly expanding field of human genetics and genomics. It covers molecular, clinical and cytogenetics, interfacing between advanced biomedical research and the clinician, and bridging the great diversity of facilities, resources and viewpoints in the genetics community.
Key areas include:
-Monogenic and multifactorial disorders
-Development and malformation
-Hereditary cancer
-Medical Genomics
-Gene mapping and functional studies
-Genotype-phenotype correlations
-Genetic variation and genome diversity
-Statistical and computational genetics
-Bioinformatics
-Advances in diagnostics
-Therapy and prevention
-Animal models
-Genetic services
-Community genetics