A new paradigm in disease classification, diagnosis and treatment is rapidly approaching. Known as precision medicine, this new healthcare model incorporates and integrates genetic information, microbiome data, and information on patients’ environment and lifestyle to better identify and classify disease processes, and to provide custom-tailored therapeutic solutions. In spite of its promises, precision medicine faces several challenges that need to be overcome to successfully implement this new healthcare model. In this paper we identify four main areas that require attention: data, tools and systems, regulations, and people. While there are important ongoing efforts for addressing the first three areas, we argue that the human factor needs to be taken into consideration as well. In particular, we discuss several studies that show how primary care physicians and clinicians in general feel underequipped to interpret genetic tests and direct-to-consumer genomic tests. Considering the importance of genetic information for precision medicine applications, this is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed. To increase the number of professionals with the necessary expertise to correctly interpret the genomics profiles of their patients, we propose several strategies that involve medical curriculum reforms, specialist training, and ongoing physician training.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate current direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic customers' ability to interpret and comprehend test results and to determine if honest brokers are needed. Method: One hundred and twenty-two customers of the DTC genetic testing company 23andMe were polled in an online survey. The subjects were asked about their personal test results and to interpret the results of two mock test cases (type 2 diabetes and multiple sclerosis), where results were translated into disease probability for an individual compared to the public. Results: When asked to evaluate the risk, 72.1% correctly assessed the first case and 77% were correct on the second case. Only 23.8% of those surveyed were able to interpret both cases correctly. χ² and logistic regression were used to interpret the results. Participants who took the time to read the DTC test-provided supplemental material were 3.93 times (p = 0.040) more likely to correctly interpret the test results than those who did not. The odds for correctly interpreting the test cases were 3.289 times (p = 0.011) higher for those who made more than USD 50,000 than those who made less. Survey results were compared to the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) phase 4 cycle 3 data to evaluate national trends. Conclusions: Most of the subjects were able to correctly interpret the test cases, yet a majority did not share their results with a health-care professional. As the market for DTC genetic testing grows, test comprehension will become more critical. Involving more health professionals in this process may be necessary to ensure proper interpretations.

BackgroundPrecision medicine is set to deliver a rich new data set of genomic information. However, the number of certified specialists in the United States is small, with only 4244 genetic counselors and 1302 clinical geneticists. We conducted a national survey of 264 medical professionals to evaluate how they interpret genetic test results, determine their confidence and self-efficacy of interpreting genetic test results with patients, and capture their opinions and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic tests (DTC-GT).MethodsParticipants were grouped into two categories, genetic specialists (genetic counselors and clinical geneticists) and medical providers (primary care, internists, physicians assistants, advanced nurse practitioners, etc.). The survey (full instrument can be found in the Additional file 1) presented three genetic test report scenarios for interpretation: a genetic risk for diabetes, genomic sequencing for symptoms report implicating a potential HMN7B: distal hereditary motor neuropathy VIIB diagnosis, and a statin-induced myopathy risk. Participants were also asked about their opinions on DTC-GT results and rank their own perceived level of preparedness to review genetic test results with patients.ResultsThe rates of correctly interpreting results were relatively high (74.4% for the providers compared to the specialist’s 83.4%) and age, prior genetic test consultation experience, and level of trust assigned to the reports were associated with higher correct interpretation rates. The self-selected efficacy and the level of preparedness to consult on a patient’s genetic results were higher for the specialists than the provider group.ConclusionSpecialists remain the best group to assist patients with DTC-GT, however, primary care providers may still provide accurate interpretation of test results when specialists are unavailable.

Precision medicine is increasingly incorporated into clinical practice via three primary data conduits: environmental, lifestyle, and genetic data. In this manuscript we take a closer look at the genetic tier of precision medicine. The volume and variety of data provides a more robust picture of health for individual patients and patient populations. However, this increased data may also have an adverse effect by muddling our understanding without the proper pedagogical tools. Patient genomic data can be challenging to work with. Physicians may encounter genetic results which are not fully understood. Genetic tests may also lead to the quandary of linking patients with diseases or disorders where there are no known treatments. Thus, physicians face a unique challenge of establishing the proper scope of their duty to patients when dealing with genomic data. Some of those scope of practice boundaries have been established as a result of litigation, while others remain an open question. In this paper, we map out some of the legal challenges facing the genomic component of precision medicine, both established and some questions requiring additional guidance. If physicians begin to perceive genomic data as falling short in overall benefit to their patients, it may detrimentally impact precision medicine as a whole. Helping to develop guidance for physicians working with patient genomic data can help avoid this fate of faltering confidence.