Anne C. Madeo , Erin D. Bouldin , Kimberly A. Kaphingst , Chelsey R. Schlechter , Melissa Yack , Jennie L. Hill
{"title":"美国农村和城市县临床医生要求的基因检测的流行:对2022年健康信息全国趋势调查的分析","authors":"Anne C. Madeo , Erin D. Bouldin , Kimberly A. Kaphingst , Chelsey R. Schlechter , Melissa Yack , Jennie L. Hill","doi":"10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Rural residents face challenges to realizing guideline-concordant healthcare. Less is known about the role of rurality in achieving guideline-concordant genetic testing. To address this gap, we estimated the association between rural residence and two types of clinician-ordered genetic testing among individuals who had heard of genetic testing.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In 2024, we considered the 4559 individuals (80.0 % of respondents) who indicated that they had heard of genetic testing in the cross-sectional Health Information National Trends Survey wave 6, collected in the United States, March 7 – November 8, 2022, to assess the association between rurality and two types of clinician-ordered genetic testing, reproductive carrier and disease risk testing. Log binomial regression models estimated the prevalence ratios of two types of guideline-concordant clinician-ordered genetic testing while adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 4559 respondents assessed for eligibility, 976 and 3933 responses were eligible for analysis of clinician-ordered reproductive genetic carrier testing and disease risk testing, respectively. The prevalence of clinician-ordered reproductive carrier and disease risk genetic testing did not vary by rurality in adjusted multivariable regression analyses (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR): 0.71, 95 % CI 0.38–1.33, aPR: 1.23, 95 % CI 0.86–1.75, respectively). <em>Post hoc</em> we identified significant differences in different covariate aPRs in both types of clinician-ordered genetic testing.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Clinician-ordered genetic testing does not appear to be associated with geography among individuals who have heard of genetic testing. <em>Post hoc</em> differences in factors associated with each type of testing suggest pathways by which the differences in use may occur.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38066,"journal":{"name":"Preventive Medicine Reports","volume":"57 ","pages":"Article 103163"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of clinician-ordered genetic testing in rural and urban United States counties: An analysis of the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey\",\"authors\":\"Anne C. Madeo , Erin D. Bouldin , Kimberly A. Kaphingst , Chelsey R. Schlechter , Melissa Yack , Jennie L. Hill\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Rural residents face challenges to realizing guideline-concordant healthcare. Less is known about the role of rurality in achieving guideline-concordant genetic testing. To address this gap, we estimated the association between rural residence and two types of clinician-ordered genetic testing among individuals who had heard of genetic testing.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In 2024, we considered the 4559 individuals (80.0 % of respondents) who indicated that they had heard of genetic testing in the cross-sectional Health Information National Trends Survey wave 6, collected in the United States, March 7 – November 8, 2022, to assess the association between rurality and two types of clinician-ordered genetic testing, reproductive carrier and disease risk testing. Log binomial regression models estimated the prevalence ratios of two types of guideline-concordant clinician-ordered genetic testing while adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 4559 respondents assessed for eligibility, 976 and 3933 responses were eligible for analysis of clinician-ordered reproductive genetic carrier testing and disease risk testing, respectively. The prevalence of clinician-ordered reproductive carrier and disease risk genetic testing did not vary by rurality in adjusted multivariable regression analyses (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR): 0.71, 95 % CI 0.38–1.33, aPR: 1.23, 95 % CI 0.86–1.75, respectively). <em>Post hoc</em> we identified significant differences in different covariate aPRs in both types of clinician-ordered genetic testing.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Clinician-ordered genetic testing does not appear to be associated with geography among individuals who have heard of genetic testing. <em>Post hoc</em> differences in factors associated with each type of testing suggest pathways by which the differences in use may occur.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Preventive Medicine Reports\",\"volume\":\"57 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Preventive Medicine Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335525002025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Preventive Medicine Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335525002025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的农村居民在实现指南一致性医疗保健方面面临挑战。在实现与指南一致的基因检测方面,乡村性的作用所知甚少。为了解决这一差距,我们在听说过基因检测的个体中估计了农村居住与两种临床医生要求的基因检测之间的关系。方法在2024年,我们考虑了4559个人(占受访者的80.0%),这些人表示他们在2022年3月7日至11月8日在美国收集的横断面健康信息全国趋势调查第6波中听说过基因检测,以评估农村与两种类型的临床要求的基因检测之间的关系,生殖载体和疾病风险检测。对数二项回归模型在调整社会人口学特征的同时,估计了两种类型的符合指南的临床医生要求的基因检测的患病率。结果在4559名被评估为合格的应答者中,976名和3933名应答者分别符合临床要求的生殖遗传载体检测和疾病风险检测分析。在校正多变量回归分析中,临床医生要求的生殖载体和疾病风险基因检测的流行率没有因农村地区而异(校正患病率(aPR)分别为0.71,95% CI 0.38-1.33, aPR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.86-1.75)。事后,我们在两种类型的临床医生要求的基因检测中发现了不同协变量apr的显著差异。结论在听说过基因检测的个体中,临床医生安排的基因检测似乎与地理无关。与每种类型的测试相关的因素的事后差异提示了使用差异可能发生的途径。
Prevalence of clinician-ordered genetic testing in rural and urban United States counties: An analysis of the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey
Objective
Rural residents face challenges to realizing guideline-concordant healthcare. Less is known about the role of rurality in achieving guideline-concordant genetic testing. To address this gap, we estimated the association between rural residence and two types of clinician-ordered genetic testing among individuals who had heard of genetic testing.
Methods
In 2024, we considered the 4559 individuals (80.0 % of respondents) who indicated that they had heard of genetic testing in the cross-sectional Health Information National Trends Survey wave 6, collected in the United States, March 7 – November 8, 2022, to assess the association between rurality and two types of clinician-ordered genetic testing, reproductive carrier and disease risk testing. Log binomial regression models estimated the prevalence ratios of two types of guideline-concordant clinician-ordered genetic testing while adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.
Results
Of the 4559 respondents assessed for eligibility, 976 and 3933 responses were eligible for analysis of clinician-ordered reproductive genetic carrier testing and disease risk testing, respectively. The prevalence of clinician-ordered reproductive carrier and disease risk genetic testing did not vary by rurality in adjusted multivariable regression analyses (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR): 0.71, 95 % CI 0.38–1.33, aPR: 1.23, 95 % CI 0.86–1.75, respectively). Post hoc we identified significant differences in different covariate aPRs in both types of clinician-ordered genetic testing.
Conclusions
Clinician-ordered genetic testing does not appear to be associated with geography among individuals who have heard of genetic testing. Post hoc differences in factors associated with each type of testing suggest pathways by which the differences in use may occur.