MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402443992 · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00009

Nursing strategies to address health disparities in genomics-informed care: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4402443992 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline Limoges, Patrick Chiu, Dzifa Dordunoo, Rebecca Puddester, April Pike, Tessa Wonsiak, Bernadette Zakher, Lindsay Carlsson, Jessica Mussell

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreAthabasca UniversityUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of AlbertaMemorial University of NewfoundlandOccupational Cancer Research Centre
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGenome AlbertaGenome Canada
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINEHealth careMedicineGrey literatureNursingData extractionFamily medicinePsychological interventionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to map the available global evidence on strategies that nurses can use to facilitate genomics-informed health care to address health disparities to inform the development of a research and action agenda. INTRODUCTION: The integration of genomics into health care is improving patient outcomes through better prevention, diagnostics, and treatment; however, scholars have noted concerns with widening health disparities. Nurses work across the health system and can address health disparities from a clinical, research, education, policy, and leadership perspective. To do this, a comprehensive understanding of existing genomics-informed strategies is required. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods studies; systematic and literature reviews; and text and opinion papers) and unpublished (gray) literature that focused on genomics-informed nursing strategies to address health disparities over the past 10 years were included. No limitations were placed on language. METHODS: The review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A search was undertaken on May 25, 2023, across 5 databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Library (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Gray literature was searched through websites, including the International Society of Nurses in Genetics and the Global Genomics Nursing Alliance. Abstracts, titles, and full texts were screened by 2 or more independent reviewers. Data were extracted using a data extraction tool. The coded data were analyzed by 2 or more independent reviewers using conventional content analysis, and the summarized results are presented using descriptive statistics and evidence tables. RESULTS: In total, we screened 818 records and 31 were included in the review. The most common years of publication were 2019 (n=5, 16%), 2020 (n=5, 16%), and 2021 (n=5, 16%). Most papers came from the United States (n=25, 81%) followed by the Netherlands (n=3, 10%), United Kingdom (n=1, 3%), Tanzania (n=1, 3%), and written from a global perspective (n=1, 3%). Nearly half the papers discussed cancer-related conditions (n=14, 45%) and most of the others did not specify a disease or condition (n=12, 39%). In terms of population, nurse clinicians were mentioned the most frequently (n=16, 52%) followed by nurse researchers, scholars, or scientists (n=8, 26%). The patient population varied, with African American patients or communities (n=7, 23%) and racial or ethnic minorities (n=6, 19%) discussed most frequently. The majority of equity issues focused on inequitable access to genetic and genomics health services among ethnic and racial groups (n=14, 45%), individuals with lower educational attainment or health literacy (n=6, 19%), individuals with lower socioeconomic status (n=3, 10%), migrants (n=3, 10%), individuals with lack of insurance coverage (n=2, 6%), individuals living in rural or remote areas (n=1, 3%), and individuals of older age (n=1, 3%). Root causes contributing to health disparity issues varied at the patient, provider, and system levels. Strategies were grouped into 2 categories: those to prepare the nursing workforce and those nurses can implement in practice. We further categorized the strategies by domains of practice, including clinical practice, education, research, policy advocacy, and leadership. Papers that mentioned strategies focused on preparing the nursing workforce were largely related to the education domain (n=16, 52%), while papers that mentioned strategies that nurses can implement were mostly related to clinical practice (n=19, 61%). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses in all domains of practice can draw on the identified strategies to address health disparities related to genomics in health care. We found a notable lack of intervention and evaluation studies exploring the impact on health and equity outcomes. Additional research informed by implementation science that measures health outcomes is needed to identify best practices. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: A French-language version of the abstract of this review is available: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A65 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207