Perceived benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: Results of a national physician survey

• Published in: European journal of human genetics : EJHG Vol. 31; no. 11; pp. 1309 - 1316
• Main Authors: Vassy, Jason L, Kerman, Benjamin J, Harris, Elizabeth J, Lemke, Amy A, Clayman, Marla L, Antwi, Ashley A, MacIsaac, Katharine, Yi, Thomas, Brunette, Charles A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Nature Publishing Group 01.11.2023
• Subjects: Decision making; Female; Health Personnel; Humans; Insurance discrimination; Male; Middle Aged; Patients; Physicians; Physicians, Primary Care; Preventive medicine; Primary care; Risk Factors; Risk groups; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 1018-4813; 1476-5438
• DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01318-8

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns.