Exploring Canadian genetic healthcare providers’ perspectives on sponsored genetic testing
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sponsored genetic testing (SGT) programs consist of partnerships between clinical genetic testing laboratories and third-party organizations (generally biopharmaceutical companies) to offer genetic testing free of charge to a patient or healthcare system. To date, there is no research surrounding the use of SGT in Canada, or how it is perceived by professionals. This study aims to learn about Canadian genetic healthcare providers’ (CGHPs’) views on SGT, along with their perceived benefits, limitations, and impacts of SGT within the Canadian healthcare system. Certified genetic counsellors, medical geneticists, and laboratory geneticists practicing in Canada were invited to participate in semi-structed interviews. Interviews were recorded over Zoom, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Codes were created inductively, and themes emerged across cases to capture participants’ perceptions. Interviews were conducted with 18 CGHPs across six provinces. Some participants were ambivalent about SGT, and others either agreed or disagreed with its use in practice. Perspectives were categorized into four main themes: 1) adequate transparency surrounding data sharing 2) the desire for a workaround to improve access 3) consideration of budgets within a publicly funded healthcare system and 4) perspectives of non-genetics providers using SGT. Proponents noted that transparency regarding data sharing between the genetic testing laboratories and third-party companies was adequate, that SGT could provide increased access to genetic testing, and that SGT can help advocate for enhanced provincial funding of genetic services. Skeptics of SGT mentioned a lack of transparency regarding how patient data is shared and used, that a public system should be able to cover all patients who require genetic testing, and that there is a responsibility to consider how externally funded testing could be detrimental to future budget considerations. All participants had considerations for their non-genetics colleagues ordering SGT. This exploratory study offers insights surrounding CGHPs’ views on SGT. It highlights the benefits and limitations regarding the use of SGT in Canada, along with a unique perspective into the challenges and nuances of using SGT within a publicly funded healthcare system.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle