10597 Background: While clinical cancer genetics remains underutilized in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and many low-middle income countries, there are few empiric studies assessing knowledge gaps and perspectives of healthcare providers. We conducted a survey of participants of a virtual short course ( https://www.africanoncogenetics.org/home ). Methods: The comprehensive survey, partly adapted from other published instruments, included multiple-choice knowledge and practice questions on cancer genetics, Likert-scale questions on perspectives, and open-ended questions on barriers. Cancer genetics experts reviewed the survey to ensure face-content validity. The online course was given between October and November 2021; participants were invited through snowball circulation on global oncology listservs. Data were summarized with descriptive analysis. Results: There were 370 participant responses included in this analysis. Participants represented 40 countries, with largest representation from Nigeria (n=106, 29%), South Africa (n=50, 14%), and Uganda (n=39, 13%). Participants represented various medical specialties and research domains: laboratory medicine (15%), medical genetics (14%), biomedical science (10%), general practice (9%), and oncology (8%) were the most common. Participants also represented a spectrum of practice settings, with the highest proportions from national hospitals (29%) and private hospitals (8%). Most of the participants 223 (71%) had some genetics lectures during medical/nursing school or other training, but only 116 (37%) had attended any continuing medical education (CME) activities in cancer genetics since starting practice. Moreover, the overwhelming majority 95% expressed interest and willingness to attend a future CME course. Many participants, 148 (47.2%) rated their knowledge of cancer genetics as poor or very poor, 150 (48%) as fair, while only 15 (5%) rated as good or very good. Most participants 196 (62%) considered themselves not qualified to interpret results of clinical cancer genetics testing, 100 (32%) were somewhat qualified, and 19 (6%) very qualified. Many participants 93 (30%) noted cancer genetics testing was not available to their patients; another 67 (22%) noted testing was only available outside the country; and only 47 (15%) had testing available within their primary institutions. In aggregate, the most common listed perceived barriers to implementing cancer genetics testing were costs (18%), lack of testing infrastructure (17%), lack of personnel (17%), and lack of provider knowledge (16%). Conclusions: Our survey demonstrates several perceived gaps limiting clinical cancer genetics testing implementation in SSA. A multi-pronged approach that addresses testing costs, testing infrastructure, and patient and provider education is urgently needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fadelu et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: