Next Article in Journal
The Relationship between Complement Components C1R and C5 Gene Polymorphism and the Values of Blood Indices in Suckling Piglets
Next Article in Special Issue
Variability of DNA Repair and Oxidative Stress Genes Associated with Worst Pain in Breast Cancer Survivors on Aromatase Inhibitors
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Immunomodulatory Effects of Fusarium Mycotoxins Using Bacterial Endotoxin-Stimulated Bovine Epithelial Cells and Macrophages in Co-Culture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Risk for Hereditary Neoplastic Syndromes in Women with Mismatch Repair-Proficient Endometrial Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/genes14112013
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Current State of Genomics in Nursing: A Scoping Review of Healthcare Provider Oriented (Clinical and Educational) Outcomes (2012–2022)

by
Joanne Thomas
1,†,
Jordan Keels
2,†,
Kathleen A. Calzone
3,4,
Laurie Badzek
3,5,
Sarah Dewell
3,6,
Christine Patch
3,7,
Emma T. Tonkin
1,3,*,‡ and
Andrew A. Dwyer
2,3,*,‡
1
Genomics Policy Unit, Faculty of Life Sciences and Education, University of South Wales, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK
2
William F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02476, USA
3
Global Genomics Nursing Alliance (G2NA), Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK
4
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, Genetics Branch, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
5
Ross and Carol Nese College of Nursing, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
6
School of Nursing, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC V2C 0C8, Canada
7
Engagement and Society, Wellcome Connecting Science, Hinxton CB10 1RQ, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
‡
These authors also contributed equally to this work.
Genes 2023, 14(11), 2013; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14112013
Submission received: 16 September 2023 / Revised: 24 October 2023 / Accepted: 25 October 2023 / Published: 27 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Genomic Nursing: Implications for Nursing Education, Practice and Research)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the 20 years since the initial sequencing of the human genome, genomics has become increasingly relevant to nursing. We sought to chart the current state of genomics in nursing by conducting a systematic scoping review of the literature in four databases (2012–2022). The included articles were categorized according to the Cochrane Collaboration outcome domains/sub-domains, and thematic analysis was employed to identify key topical areas to summarize the state of the science. Of 8532 retrieved articles, we identified 232 eligible articles. The articles primarily reported descriptive studies from the United States and other high-income countries (191/232, 82%). More than half (126/232, 54.3%) aligned with the “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” outcome domain. Three times as many articles related to the “knowledge and understanding” sub-domain compared to the “consultation process” subdomain (96 vs. 30). Five key areas of focus were identified, including “nursing practice” (50/126, 40%), “genetic counseling and screening” (29/126, 23%), “specialist nursing” (21/126, 17%), “nurse preparatory education” (17/126, 13%), and “pharmacogenomics” (9/126, 7%). Only 42/126 (33%) articles reported interventional studies. To further integrate genomics into nursing, study findings indicate there is a need to move beyond descriptive work on knowledge and understanding to focus on interventional studies and implementation of genomics into nursing practice.

1. Introduction

Since the initial sequencing of the human genome in 2003, the “genomic era” has revolutionized our understanding of health and illness, enabled rapid diagnosis and identification of at risk individuals, and informed tailored precision therapies that have improved health outcomes. Genomic healthcare involves the use of an individual’s genomic information (i.e., genetic test results) to inform care. Importantly, genomics is a lifespan competency applicable from before birth through the end of life, including preconception/prenatal testing (for inherited conditions and chromosomal anomalies), newborn screening, disease susceptibility, screening and diagnosis, determining prognosis and guiding treatment decisions, and monitoring disease burden and recurrence [1]. As such, healthcare providers must be equipped with genomic competencies to reap the full promise of genomic discovery to improve outcomes for individuals, families, communities, and populations.
While genomic healthcare holds great promise, there is an inadequate number of trained healthcare professionals with genomic competency to meet the growing demand for genomic health care [2]. There were early calls for nursing to be involved in the burgeoning field of genomics [3]. Nurses are the most numerous of trained healthcare professionals with a global workforce of 27.9 million, including 19.3 million professional nurses [4]. Further, there is a broad range in scope of practice across nursing roles depending on academic preparation and training. For example, the advanced practice registered nurse (APRN, e.g., nurse practitioner, nurse midwife) scope of practice includes assessing, diagnosing, and treating. Accordingly, nurses with genomic competency directly increase workforce capacity for accessing and delivering genomic healthcare. Yet, to effectively deliver genomic healthcare to the public, nurses, at all levels of preparation, must have appropriate genomic knowledge and skills that underlie competency [5].
Over the past 20 years, the American Academy of Nursing and Sigma Theta Tau International have published a number of articles calling for and describing how nursing can be involved in genomic healthcare. Such system-level calls have focused on integrating genomic competencies into nursing education [6,7,8,9], in hospitals/healthcare systems [10,11,12], and in healthcare policy [7,13]. More recently, the Chief Nurse for the International Council of Nurses highlighted why genomics matters to nursing in her blog [14]. In 2012, as part of a wider project to establish a “blueprint” for genomic nursing science [5], a team conducted a systematic review to identify and assess evidence of improved patient outcomes when nursing care was delivered by nurses with genomic competencies. The specific research question was “What health outcomes are associated with nursing care which incorporates genetic and genomic principles, technology and information?” [5]. The team searched existing literature published up to May 2012, yet of the 415 retrieved articles, only 7 met inclusion criteria, precluding qualitative synthesis. Thus, nearly a decade into the “genomic era”, there was yet insufficient evidence to address the question regarding genomic nursing outcomes. The extended lag between discovery and implementation into practice, sometimes referred to as the “17-year gap”, is a widespread challenge in healthcare [15]. A number of robust, evidence-based applications support genomics in practice. Guidelines from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are relevant to nursing, and in particular, APRN practice. Thus, it seems timely to re-evaluate the current state of the implementation of genomics into nursing practice.
The aim of this study was to identify the progress of nursing and/or midwifery in genomics in the 10 years (2012–2022) since the initial mixed-methods systematic review of the literature in May 2012 (reported as Supplemental Materials) [5]. To chart the current state of genomics in nursing/midwifery, we conducted a systematic scoping review of the literature to address the broad question “What outcomes are associated with nursing and midwifery practice that incorporates Omics research, principles, technology and information?”. Identified articles were sorted according to the Cochrane Collaboration outcome taxonomy [16]. Herein, we report findings related to healthcare provider oriented outcomes (2012–2022) and highlight future directions for nursing and midwifery in genomics.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted a scoping review guided by the Arksey and O’Malley framework [17,18]. There is no registered protocol associated with this scoping review. The literature search and review was conducted using Covidence™ systematic review software (2023) [19]. The study findings are reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for the reporting of scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [20].

2.1. Identifying the Research Question

The scoping review process was guided by a single primary question: “What outcomes are associated with nursing and midwifery practice that incorporates Omics research, principles, technology and information?”. For the purpose of this review, nursing/midwifery practice is defined as: patient/client care, patient/client counselling, clinical interventions, health promotion, research, and education that is provided or delivered by registered nurses/midwives.

2.2. Identifying the Relevant Literature

With the support of a research librarian, we conducted literature searches (December 2020–July 2022) in four databases (PubMed, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Web of Science core collection). The structured search used the medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and key words (Appendix A).

2.3. Selecting the Literature

Inclusion criteria for eligible studies included the following: (i) primary research studies published in a peer reviewed journal; (ii) studies reporting findings from original studies performed globally (i.e., any country of the world); (iii) studies reporting results/outcomes associated with a nursing activity in Omics (i.e., genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, metagenomics, phenomics, and transcriptomics); (iv) studies with an explicit focus on nursing/midwifery activities; (v) published in English; (vi) published since May 2012 (i.e., immediately following the publication of the original mixed-methods systematic review [5]). Exclusion criteria included: (i) review articles, letters to the editor, or commentary articles; (ii) reporting secondary or tertiary sources; (iii) studies with no clear nursing/midwifery contribution; (iv) studies with peripheral involvement of nurses/midwives (e.g., part of the study team); (v) studies in which nursing/midwifery activities are not the study focus or without defined outcomes; (vi) not published in English; (vii) published prior to May 2012. Articles retrieved from the structured literature search were imported into Covidence™ for screening. After removing duplicate titles, articles underwent independent, dual review of title and abstract (JT, JK, KAC, CP, AAD, ETT). Discrepancies were determined by a third independent reviewer from within the team. Subsequently, the remaining articles underwent independent, dual, full-text review (JS, JK). Any discrepancies during the review process were resolved by a third independent reviewer (KAC, AAD, ETT).

2.4. Charting the Data

Independent investigators (JT, JK) extracted data using a structured, predetermined data collection form. The structured form was developed specifically for this scoping review to capture title, authors, year, country, study population, nursing/midwife population, methods, nursing/midwife activity or intervention, genomics focus, summary of study findings/outcomes, and relevant Cochrane Collaboration outcome taxonomy (Appendix B) [16]. Briefly, the Cochrane taxonomy comprises five outcome domains (“consumer”; “health care provider”; “health service delivery”; “related to research”; and “societal or governmental”), each with respective sub-domains. Risk of bias was not conducted due to the methodological variability of the included studies.

2.5. Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting Results

Extracted data from included articles were organized in a master table (Supplemental Materials). Articles were grouped according to Cochrane Collaboration outcome taxonomy domain “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” that includes two sub-domains (“knowledge and understanding” and “consultation process”). Results are reported using descriptive statistics (i.e., percentages) and narratively.

2.6. Synthesis of Results

To synthesize nursing/midwifery roles in Omics within the Cochrane Collaboration “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” domain, two investigators (JK, AAD) reviewed and analyzed identified articles using an iterative process to identify thematic elements [21]. Identified thematic elements were subsequently collapsed into categories across settings and target audience for more granular reporting. Subsequently, thematic analysis was applied to identify key topical areas for nursing in genomics to summarize the state of the science in the respective areas.

2.7. Patient and Public Involvement

There was no patient or public involvement in this scoping review.

3. Results

3.1. Selection of Sources of Evidence

The initial search strategy yielded a total of 8532 articles. Removing duplicates left 8448 articles for title and abstract screening. Screening excluded 7833 articles, leaving 615 articles for full-text review. Subsequently, 232 included articles were retained for analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) depicts the review process and reasons for exclusion. A table delineating the attributes, characteristics, and key findings for each included article is provided in Supplemental Materials.

3.2. Characteristics of Sources of Evidence

The 232 included studies spanned 33 countries, yet nearly half (111/232, 47.8%) of the studies were from the United States (USA) [5,9,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130]. Based on the World Bank Income classification, the vast majority of studies were conducted in high income countries (191/232, 82.3%) [5,9,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212]. Included studies were then classified according to the Cochrane Collaboration outcome taxonomy [213]. More than half (126/232, 54.3%) of articles related to “healthcare provider oriented outcomes”, followed by “consumer oriented outcomes” (67/232, 28.9%) and “health service delivery outcomes” (39/232, 16.8%). Herein, we report the findings relating to the predominant outcome identified in the systematic literature search (“healthcare provider oriented outcomes”).

3.3. Characteristics of Studies Reporting “Healthcare Provider Oriented Outcomes”

Our structured literature search (2012–2022) identified 126 articles relating to “healthcare provider oriented outcomes”. There are two sub-domains within this Cochrane outcome. Approximately three-quarters of identified articles (96/126, 76.2%) relate to the “knowledge and understanding” sub-domain [22,26,27,28,29,35,36,45,49,50,54,56,59,60,61,63,64,65,66,67,69,71,72,74,81,87,88,92,93,95,98,99,102,105,106,108,109,110,111,113,117,118,120,121,122,123,125,127,128,134,142,143,153,154,155,158,161,165,168,169,170,172,173,175,178,180,182,186,187,192,193,201,203,209,211,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230], while the remaining articles (30/126, 23.8%) pertain to “consultation process” [34,38,43,73,84,94,100,131,136,138,140,144,145,151,152,167,176,179,183,189,190,194,195,197,205,206,212,231,232,233]. There was consistent, steady, and nearly linear growth of nursing genomics publications relating to “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” with an average of 11 ± 3 articles (median: 12) articles published each year from 2012 to 2022 (Figure 2).
Geographically, nearly half of studies (60/126, 47.6%) [22,26,27,28,29,31,34,35,36,38,42,43,45,49,50,54,56,59,60,61,63,64,65,66,67,69,70,71,72,73,74,79,81,84,87,88,92,93,94,95,98,99,100,102,105,106,108,109,110,111,113,117,118,120,121,122,123,125,127,128] were published by groups from the USA, followed by the Netherlands (10/126, 8%) [131,138,140,145,176,178,183,189,192,205] and the United Kingdom (UK, 9/126, 7%) [143,151,161,175,182,197,203,206,209], while the other 30 countries individually contributed to <1% of total publications.
In terms of methodology, 78/126 (62%) employed a quantitative approach [22,26,27,28,34,35,36,45,49,56,61,63,65,66,69,71,72,81,84,87,88,93,98,99,100,105,106,108,109,111,113,117,120,121,122,123,127,134,138,140,144,145,155,158,165,167,168,170,172,173,176,178,179,182,186,187,189,192,193,195,197,209,211,215,216,217,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231]. Other methods were less frequently used, including mixed-methods (24/126 19%) [29,50,60,70,73,74,79,92,94,95,102,118,125,142,143,153,154,183,194,205,206,218,219,232], qualitative (20/126 15.9%) [31,38,42,43,54,64,67,110,128,131,136,152,169,175,180,190,201,212,214,233], descriptive (3/126, 2%) [59,161,203], and clinical audit (1/126, <1%)[151]. Identified studies were primarily non-interventional (84/126, 67%) [22,26,27,28,31,34,38,42,43,45,49,54,59,61,64,66,67,69,71,73,84,87,88,93,94,100,102,108,109,111,113,118,120,121,123,125,127,128,131,134,136,138,144,152,153,155,158,165,167,168,169,172,173,175,176,179,183,186,187,190,192,194,195,201,209,211,212,214,216,217,220,221,222,223,224,226,227,228,230,231,232,233], while 42/126 (33%) were interventional in nature, including five articles reporting on instrument development (i.e., development, testing/validation, psychometric properties) [29,35,36,56,60,63,65,70,72,74,79,81,92,95,98,99,105,106,110,117,122,140,142,143,145,154,170,178,180,189,193,197,205,206,215,218,219,225,229].

3.4. Settings of Articles Reporting “Healthcare Provider Oriented Outcomes”

Thematic analysis of articles on “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” identified reports spanning five settings, including “clinical practice” in work settings (85/126, 67.5%), “nursing education” in academic settings (23/126, 18.3%), “professional development” for practicing nurses (8/126, 6.3%), “academic research” (i.e., instrument development and validation) (5/126, 4.0%), and “other” (5/126, 4.0%) (Figure 3A). Articles in the “clinical practice” setting [28,31,34,38,42,45,54,60,64,69,71,72,73,79,84,87,88,93,94,95,100,102,105,108,109,111,120,121,122,125,128,131,136,138,140,143,144,145,151,152,153,154,155,158,161,165,167,168,169,172,173,175,176,178,179,180,183,187,189,190,192,194,195,197,201,205,206,209,211,212,214,216,217,218,219,220,222,223,224,226,227,229,231,232,233] primarily evaluated nurses’ knowledge, views, and attitudes, suggesting that nurses believe it is important to integrate genomics into practice. However, results suggest that nurses lack the knowledge and confidence for integration. “Nursing education” articles [22,26,27,29,49,50,56,59,65,66,67,74,98,99,106,110,118,127,134,186,193,215,225] examined genomics knowledge, comfort, and confidence among nursing faculty (n = 6) and students (including undergraduate [n = 6] and graduate [n = 3] nursing students, and one article including both faculty and undergraduate students). Key findings demonstrate limited knowledge and comfort with genomics in nursing faculty and students. In contrast, “professional development” articles [61,63,81,92,113,203,221,230] focused on educational programs for practicing nurses. Overall results suggest that nurses benefit from exposure to genomics material. “Academic research” articles [26,50,113,120,123] concentrated on the Genomic Nursing Concept Inventory (GNCI) [26,50,123] and the Genetics and Genomics Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS) [113,120]. Psychometric properties suggest the GNCI is a reliable and valid tool to assess genomic knowledge among nurses. The GGNPS is a psychometrically evaluated instrument that evaluates nurses’ knowledge/competency as well as attitudes/receptivity, confidence, and decision/adoption of genomics in nursing practice [234]. The “other” category included heterogenous topics including development of a mobile pharmacogenomics application [70], results from a workshop on nursing and genomics [142], a Delphi study on genomics and nursing [170], and an educational framework for genomics in nursing [35].

3.5. Target Groups of Articles Reporting “Healthcare Provider Oriented Outcomes”

After sorting articles by setting, a subsequent round of analysis was conducted to provide more granular insight into the groups under investigation. Identified articles examined several groups/populations, including practicing nurses, nursing students (both undergraduate and graduate), and nursing faculty. Overall, the majority of studies (71/126, 56%) examined “knowledge and perceptions” of the relevance of genomics to nursing (Figure 3B). Among practicing nurses, 21 articles examined application of genomics to nursing practice (within inpatient hospitals and ambulatory clinics, palliative care, and public health settings) [49,70,71,84,102,105,131,138,145,151,161,167,183,192,195,197,209,220,229,231,233] and 10 focused on continuing education related to genomics [35,92,95,122,140,142,143,154,170,180]. Six studies centered on educating nursing faculty [36,59,65,74,81,106], and twelve centered on preparatory education of undergraduate (n = 6) [29,67,134,186,193,215] and graduate (n = 6) [98,99,110,117,118,225] nursing students. Six articles reported on “other” topics ranging from storytelling in genomics [182,203] and instrument development/validation [26,50,113] to the use of culturally appropriate pedigree nomenclature [94].

3.6. Current State of Genomics in Nursing across Key Areas of Focus

To summarize the current state of the science of genomics in nursing, we used thematic analysis to identify key areas of focus in the Omics nursing literature. All identified articles related to genomics. No articles were identified relating to other Omics topics. Five key areas of focus were identified, including “nursing practice” (50/126, 40%), “genetic counseling and screening” (29/126, 23%), “specialist nursing” (21/126, 17%), “nurse preparatory education” (17/126, 13%), and “pharmacogenomics” (9/126, 7%).

3.6.1. Nursing Practice Outcomes

Practicing nurses were defined as licensed nurses working in a clinical setting (i.e., inpatient hospital or ambulatory practice). A total of 50 articles were classified as relating to nursing practice. The dominant Cochrane sub-domain for nursing practice articles was “knowledge and understanding” (45/50, 90%) [26,35,36,49,50,59,63,64,69,71,81,87,92,93,108,111,113,117,120,121,122,123,125,127,128,142,143,154,155,165,169,170,172,175,187,201,203,209,218,219,220,221,222,223,224]. Fewer articles (5/50, 10%) focused on the sub-domain “consultation process” [94,144,151,167,197]. Two-thirds of articles on practicing nurses were non-interventional (33/50, 66%) [49,59,64,69,71,87,92,93,94,108,111,121,125,127,128,143,144,151,155,165,167,169,172,175,187,201,203,209,220,221,222,223,224]. Five articles (10%) reported on instrument development/validation, including the Genomic Nursing Concept Inventory (GNCI) [26,50,123] and the Genetics and Genomics Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS) [113,120]. Thematic foci of nursing practice articles included “knowledge and attitudes” (16/50, 32%) [64,87,94,108,121,125,128,155,169,172,187,201,221,222,223,224]; “nursing education” (13/50, 26%) [35,36,49,59,63,81,117,142,143,154,203,218,219]; “implementation into practice” (12/50, 24%) [71,92,111,122,144,151,165,167,175,197,209,220]; “instrument development/evaluation” (5/50, 10%) [26,50,113,120,123]; “knowledge/attitudes” and “integration into practice” (3/50, 6%) [69,93,127]; and “nursing competencies” (1/50, 2%) [170]. Results indicate misconceptions and inaccurate understanding of genomics among nurses [69,108,111,127,128,142,155,165,169,187,221,222,223,224], resulting in challenges integrating OMICs into practice [64,69,94,121,144,209]. There is a divide between nurses who see genomics as important [49,64,69,87,93,125,128,142,143,155,175] to practice and those who are uncertain of its applicability [172,201,224]. Those who view genomics as important to practice tended to be APRNs or midwives [87,125,220]. Exposure to genomics education increased knowledge and confidence among nurses [35,63,81,154,203,218].

3.6.2. Genetic Counseling and Screening Outcomes

Twenty-nine articles related to genetic counseling and screening. Approximately two-thirds of articles aligned with the Cochrane sub-domain “consultation process” (19/29, 66%) [38,43,73,100,131,138,140,152,176,179,183,189,194,195,205,206,212,231,232], while the remaining articles (10/29, 34%) related to the “knowledge and understanding” sub-domain [60,61,109,153,178,180,192,214,215,216]. Studies were primarily non-interventional (21/29, 72%) [38,43,61,73,100,109,131,138,152,153,176,179,183,192,194,195,212,214,216,231,232]. Thematic foci of genetic counseling and screening articles included ”implementation into practice” (11/29, 38%) [38,109,131,138,179,180,183,189,195,231,232], “knowledge and attitudes” (10/29, 35%) [43,73,152,153,176,192,194,212,214,216], ”nursing education” (7/29, 24%) [60,61,140,178,205,206,215], and ”nursing competencies” (1/29, 3%) [100]. The vast majority (24/29, 83%) of articles reported on genetic counseling and the decision-making process for testing, either as the central focus of the article or in addition to another topic relating to genetic screening/testing (i.e., newborn screening, testing for hereditary cancer, and return of genetic test results, including incidental findings). Overall, articles found that nurses see a role for nursing in genetic counseling and screening [192,194,195,214,216,231]. However, the results suggest a lack of knowledge, communication skills, and confidence, which poses barriers to effectively reporting results to patients and supporting patients in making high-quality decisions (i.e., decisions that are informed and aligned with values and preferences) [43,100,109,153,179,180,216].
Insufficient understanding of genomics and a lack of confidence among healthcare providers can lead to situations where they are not adequately equipped to assist patients in making informed decisions, relaying test results, determining the best care management strategies, and making appropriate referrals. This, in turn, can lead to below-standard patient care. Previous genomics education or exposure to genomics in practice increased nursing knowledge and confidence in participating in the genetic counseling and screening process [60,140,178,179,206,215].

3.6.3. Specialist Nursing Outcomes

Specialist nursing was defined as nurses working in specialty areas such as oncology and rare diseases (e.g., sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis). Twenty-one articles related to specialist nursing roles. The majority of articles aligned with the Cochrane sub-domain “knowledge and understanding” (15/21, 71%) [54,56,72,88,95,105,158,161,168,211,226,227,228,229,230], while fewer articles (6/21, 29%) [34,84,136,145,190,233] related to the “consultation process” sub-domain. Articles reporting on specialist nursing were primarily non-interventional (15/21, 71%) [34,54,84,88,136,158,161,168,190,211,226,227,228,230,233]. Thematic foci of specialist nursing articles included “knowledge and attitudes” (9/21, 43%) [34,54,88,158,161,211,226,227,233], “implementation into practice” (6/21, 29%) [84,136,168,190,228,229], “nursing education” (5/21, 24%) [56,72,95,105,145], and “nursing competencies” (1/21) [230]. Specialist nurses perceive their role as essential to patient care; however, the articles suggest nurses are inadequately prepared to communicate genomic and medical aspects of diseases such as cystic fibrosis (CF), sickle cell disease (SSD), maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY), or rare diseases [88,168,190,226,227,230,233]. Furthermore, nurses lack the confidence to provide safe and effective care [168,211].

3.6.4. Preparatory Nursing Education Outcomes

Preparatory nursing education was defined as education prior to entering clinical practice—i.e., pre-licensure, pre-qualification, or pre-registration at the undergraduate (e.g., registered nurse (RN)) and graduate levels of nursing education (e.g., advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), including nurse practitioners (NP) and U.S. nurse midwives (NM)). Sixteen articles related to preparatory nursing education outcomes. The articles involved nursing faculty as well as undergraduate/graduate nursing students. All studies were classified under the Cochrane sub-domain “knowledge and understanding”. Seven of sixteen studies (43.8%) were non-interventional [22,27,66,67,134,182,186]. Articles examined nursing faculty (6/16, 37.5%) [22,27,65,66,74,106], undergraduate nursing education (6/16, 37.5%) [29,67,99,182,186,193], graduate nursing education (NP: 2/16, 12.5% [98,110]; NM: 1/16, 6.2% [225]), and one article (6.2%) examined both undergraduate students and nursing faculty [134]. Results suggest that many nursing faculty still lack confidence in implementing genomics content into nursing curricula [22,27]. Across identified articles on preparatory nursing education, nursing students and faculty report limited knowledge and comfort with genomics content [65,134,186]. However, interventional studies improved knowledge and confidence levels among nursing students and faculty [29,98,99,106,110,193].

3.6.5. Pharmacogenomics Nursing Outcomes

Eight identified articles were classified as relating to pharmacogenomics in nursing. All articles related to the Cochrane sub-domain “knowledge and understanding”. Six of eight articles (75%) were non-interventional [28,42,45,102,173,217]. Thematic foci of pharmacogenomics articles included “knowledge and attitudes” (5/8, 62.5%) [42,45,102,173,217], “implementation into practice” (2/8, 25%) [28,70], and “nursing education” (1/8,12.5%) [79]. Findings indicate a poor understanding of pharmacogenomics and a lack of confidence in interpreting pharmacogenomic test results and applying findings to clinical care [28,42,45,70,79,102,173,217] It remains unclear whether or not nurses perceive pharmacogenomics as important to nursing practice. Article findings are discordant, as some indicate nurses view pharmacogenomics as important to practice [70,79] and others suggest nurses do not see pharmacogenomics as relevant to their profession [28,217].

3.7. Interventional Studies on Nursing in Genomics

Of the 126 identified articles (2012–2022), the overwhelming majority (84/126) were descriptive, and only 42 (33%) were interventional in nature. Thirty six (36/42, 86%) interventional studies related to the Cochrane sub-domain “knowledge and understanding” [26,29,35,36,50,56,60,63,65,70,72,74,79,81,95,98,99,105,106,110,113,117,120,122,123,142,154,170,178,180,193,215,218,219,225,229]. Of the six (6/42, 14%) articles aligned with the “consultation process”, five pertained to oncology (i.e., hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) [140,145,189,205,206] while the remaining article examined DNA collection technique [197]. The 42 interventional studies related to five key areas of genomics in nursing described above: (i) “nursing practice” (n = 17, 34% of all “nursing practice” articles) [35,36,63,81,117,122,142,154,170,197,218,219]—including five studies on instrument development/validation [26,50,113,120,123]); (ii) “preparatory nursing education” (n = 9, 56% of all “preparatory nursing education” articles) [29,65,74,98,99,106,110,193,225]; (iii) “genetic counseling and screening” (n = 8, 28% of all “genetic counseling and screening” articles) [60,140,178,180,189,205,206,215]; (iv) “specialist nursing” (n = 6, 29% of all “specialist nursing” articles) including three in oncology [95,105,145], two on sickle cell disease [56,229], and one on gene therapy [72]; and (iv) “pharmacogenomics” (n = 2, 25% of all “pharmacogenomics” articles) [70,79] (Figure 4).
Articles reporting on instrument development and validation focused on two instruments, the Genomics Nursing Concept inventory (GNCI) [26,50,123] and the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS) [113,120]. Psychometric evaluation indicates that GNCI is reliable at measuring the genomic knowledge of nurses [50]. The GGNPS has a different focus, as it was designed to evaluate competency/knowledge, attitudes/receptivity, confidence, and decision/adoption of genomics in nursing practice. It is the only validated instrument that specifically assesses these constructs in practicing nurses. The GGNPS employs a mix of multiple choice, Likert-type scales, and dichotomous (yes/no) questions, posing challenges for evaluating construct validity [113,120,234]. The instrument has undergone several refinements and meets accepted thresholds for face and content validity, test–retest reliability, and construct validity [113,120,234]. One study assessed nursing competencies [170]. The article suggested that knowledge alone is not enough to provide competent genomic nursing care and pointed to the critical importance of experiential learning [170]. Other interventions included online learning, blended learning (i.e., mix of online and in-person), and in-person learning, ranging from 2 h sessions to a year-long intervention. Overall, interventional articles demonstrate that educational programs increase nurses’ perceived knowledge of and confidence in applying genomics.

4. Discussion

This scoping review aimed to chart the current state of nursing and midwifery in Omics. A 2012 attempt to conduct a systematic review of nursing’s role in genomics was not possible, as only seven eligible articles were identified [5]. In the current study, we identified 232 eligible articles, of which more than half (126/232, 54.3%) aligned with the “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” domain of the Cochrane outcome taxonomy. All of the identified articles related to genomics, and no identified articles related to other Omics topics. There has been consistent, near linear growth in the number of publications on nursing in genomics (2012–2022), with the majority of studies coming from groups in the U.S. and other high-income countries. It may be that nurses in middle- and low-income countries who are involved in providing genomic testing, information, and care are not reporting their activities in the literature. Regardless, there is a need for broad international engagement of nurses in genomics to harness the full potential of genomics to improve outcomes of patients, communities, and populations globally.
Notably, a 2020 article by Tonkin and colleagues reported the pilot testing of a genomics in nursing self-assessment maturity matrix using a mixed-methods, participatory research approach with self-assessment [235]. The maturity matrix enables users to benchmark the current state of genomics integration into nursing practice for their country/organization. Further, the tool provides a framework guiding the development of strategic improvement, implementation, and evaluation of change over time. A relative strength of this strategic approach is that the participatory approach is highly flexible and can be readily adapted across settings regardless of the current state of implementation of genomics into nursing practice, thus making it highly relevant for use across international settings and divergent health systems.
Of the 126 “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” articles, three times as many articles related to the “knowledge and understanding” sub-domain compared to the “consultation process” subdomain (96 vs. 30). This finding suggests that, twenty years into the “genomic era”, much of the published nursing literature in genomics has concentrated on nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs towards genomics. Overall, the cumulative body of work indicates that while nurses view genomics as important to practice, knowledge and implementation is lagging, reflecting the well-known 17-year lag between discovery and implementation [15]. Indeed, a 2018 study by Read and Ward found that both nursing students and faculty have limited understanding of genomics and share misconceptions about fundamental concepts [236]. This was also found in a study conducted by Coleman et al. (2014), which reported that genomics is important to integrate into practice; however, nurses felt inadequately prepared and lacked confidence in their knowledge of common genetic diseases [93]. The majority of articles (74%) identified in this scoping review focused on practicing nurses (i.e., clinical practice and professional development), while only 18% focused on nursing education (i.e., students and faculty).
It merits noting that requirements for incorporating genomics into nursing curricula vary. Within the U.K., knowledge and application of genomics is included within the Standards of Proficiency for Registered Nurses (https://www.nmc.org.uk/globalassets/sitedocuments/standards-of-proficiency/nurses/future-nurse-proficiencies.pdf, accessed on 15 September 2023) as part of Platform 2, “promoting health and preventing ill health”, and Platform 3, “assessing needs and planning care”. However, how this is translated into individual curricula of pre-registration courses is highly variable. In the U.S., the American Association of Colleges of Nursing publishes “The Essentials: Core competencies for Professionals Nursing Education”, most recently in 2021 (https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Publications/Essentials-2021.pdf, accessed on 15 September 2023). The “Essentials” span 10 domains for undergraduate and graduate nursing education including: (i) knowledge for nursing practice, (ii) person-centered care, (iii) population health, (iv) scholarship for the nursing discipline, (v) quality and safety, (vi) interprofessional partnerships, (vii) systems-based practice, (viii) informatics and healthcare technologies, (ix) professionalism, and (x) personal, professional, and leadership development. Notably, genomics is virtually absent from the “Essentials”, appearing only in the glossary (i.e., when defining health information technology and determinants of health) and in Domain 2.2, “communicate effectively with individuals” (2.2i “apply individualized information, such as genetic/genomic, pharmacogenetic, and environmental exposure information in the delivery of personalized health care”). Thus, there is a need for accrediting bodies to have a greater recognition of the importance of genomics to nursing.
There is a need for the discipline to implement a multi-level strategy to develop a robust and sustainable pipeline of nurses with genomic competency. Nursing must move beyond descriptive and observational studies and emphasize interventional studies that focus on integrating genomics into nursing practice. A holistic, multi-level approach should include studies that build genomic competency in nursing students who are the next generation of clinicians. In parallel, nursing must also develop faculty and practicing nurses who provide academic preparation in genomics, mentor clinical training experiences, and demonstrate integration of genomics into nursing practice.
We identified 42 interventional studies in our systematic literature search, of which 72% involved educational interventions for practicing nurses, nursing students (undergraduate and graduate), and/or nursing faculty. Such work has largely focused on knowledge and understanding of genomics. We found a paucity of articles with interventional designs evaluating how knowledge is implemented and applied to nursing practice. A critical gap identified from this scoping review is that there is little understanding of how teaching and improving genomics knowledge affects clinical practice. Of note, a 2015 study aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate a year-long genomics education intervention in 23 U.S. Magnet hospitals [92]. The Method for Introducing a New Competency: Genomics (MINC) program trained, supported, and supervised “champion dyads” (i.e., institutional administrator and genomics educator) to enhance integration of genomics into nursing practice. Assessment of satisfaction and institutional outcomes revealed variable effectiveness of champion dyads yet support the notion that such dyadic interventions focusing on education, policy, and healthcare services can increase nursing capacity in genomics.
Two articles reported on the Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey (GGNPS) instrument that evaluates nursing competency in practice [113,120,234]. One article was identified in the literature search and the second was published shortly after the search date. This is the only instrument identified in our scoping review that moves beyond knowledge and understanding to assess the application of genomics to nursing practice. Validated measures are critical for increasing the rigor of studies. Thus, using this validated instrument in future interventional studies and developing additional instruments will be important for increasing the rigor in measuring the application of genomics in nursing practice. Another important consideration for increasing the rigor relates to the reporting standards in studies evaluating genomic education initiatives [237]. Lack of harmonized reporting limits the evidence base for study replication and comparison across educational interventions. A recent study by Niselle and colleagues used a Delphi process with diverse participants to create the Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics (RISE2 Genomics) [238]. This work helps advance the field by outlining quality reporting standards in genomics education and evaluation, thus supporting transparency and effective intervention appraisal.
Global clinical integration of genomics is lacking, largely due to a limited healthcare workforce with genomic competency. This scoping review found scant literature on genomic nursing competencies [100,170,230]. Considering the considerable work needed to build genomic nursing capacity, core competencies are a critical component of workforce development. Competencies can guide nursing education, training, and standards of care. Genomic nursing competencies have been established in several high-income countries, including the U.S. [100] the U.K. [239], Japan [142], and Europe [240]. However, repurposing competencies elsewhere requires in-country leadership and resources, and it must consider healthcare system design, infrastructure, and cultural attitudes/values. The Global Genomics Nursing Alliance (G2NA) is currently overseeing the development of global minimum nursing competencies in genomics for all nurses irrespective of education preparation, nursing role, or health service design. Such global efforts may be important for helping to accelerate the incorporation of genomics into nursing practice beyond high-income countries. This scoping review identified several future directions for the discipline to advance the integration of genomics into nursing (i.e., “healthcare provider oriented outcomes”) (Box 1). For example, a future direction may include developing studies that are: (i) grounded in nursing competencies in genomics; (ii) interventional (i.e., simulation); (iii) utilize validated instruments (i.e., GNCI, GGNPS); (iv) assess how embedding competencies affect nursing practice (i.e., longitudinal); and (v) are reported using established reporting standards (i.e., RISE2 Genomics).
Box 1. Future directions to propel the integration of genomics into nursing.
  • Global efforts: Expanding integration of genomics into nursing practice beyond high income countries.
  • Development pipeline: Dual efforts to instill genomic competencies in practicing nurses and embed competencies into nursing education/training.
  • Competent workforce: Basing workforce development on established nursing competencies in genomics.
  • Implementation into practice: Shift focus from the “knowledge and understanding” sub-domain to the “consultation process” sub-domain.
  • Measurement: Utilize validated instruments to measure application of knowledge and assess interventions.
  • Reporting: Use reporting standards to facilitate transparency and comparability.
While beyond the scope of this paper, we recognize that there are additional considerations that merit consideration for future directions. One important aspect relating to genomics and nursing efforts relates to being responsive to stakeholders. Future work should ensure that genomic nursing practice is responsive to the needs of patients, communities, and populations nurses serve. Similarly, there are opportunities to engage with community stakeholders to co-create solutions for unmet genomic healthcare needs and bridge disparities in genomic healthcare [241]. In addition, nursing should consider emerging technologies to develop ways that nurses can use artificial intelligence, machine learning, and large language models to support genomic nursing care. We envision that integrating technology can help to develop a “high tech, high touch” approach to delivering genomic healthcare that is both effective and efficient while holding to the humanistic and person-centered ethos of nursing.
This scoping review has a number of relative strengths. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature (2012–2022) and utilized a rigorous dual review using a well-established framework to guide the process [17,18]. In addition, to chart the data we used the Cochrane Collaboration outcome taxonomy (i.e., “healthcare provider related outcomes” domain, “knowledge and understanding” and “consultation process” sub-domains). This work has several limitations that are worthwhile to note. First, some articles may not have been included, as it was not always evident that the authors involved were nurses. Numerous articles were excluded because nurses were the study population (i.e., Nurses Health Study). Second, we did not conduct an extensive search of the grey literature. Third, we did not assess risk of bias given the methodological variability of the included studies.

5. Conclusions

There has been significant, steady growth in articles relating to nursing and genomics (2012–2022) compared to the first decade following the initial sequencing of the human genome. The vast majority of “healthcare provider oriented outcomes” articles are descriptive from high-income countries that report on non-interventional studies focusing on the “knowledge and understanding” sub-domain. To develop the discipline, there is a need to move beyond descriptive studies and focus on interventional studies and implementation. Such efforts will be necessary to develop a durable pipeline of nurses with genomic competencies to meet the burgeoning demand for genomic healthcare. There are opportunities to leverage international networks (G2NA) to help accelerate implementation of genomics into nursing practice.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes14112013/s1, Table S1: Identified articles and data extraction table.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: K.A.C., L.B., S.D., C.P., A.A.D. and E.T.T.; methodology: E.T.T.; software: E.T.T.; validation: K.A.C., C.P., A.A.D. and E.T.T.; formal Analysis: J.T., J.K., A.A.D. and E.T.T.; investigation: J.T., J.K., K.A.C., C.P., A.A.D. and E.T.T.; resources, K.A.C., A.A.D. and E.T.T.; data curation: J.T. and J.K; writing—original draft preparation: J.K. and A.A.D.; writing—review and editing: J.T, J.K., K.A.C., L.B., S.D., C.P., A.A.D. and E.T.T.; visualization: A.A.D.; supervision: A.A.D. and E.T.T.; project administration: K.A.C., A.A.D. and E.T.T.; funding acquisition, J.T. and A.A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Dwyer receives funding support from the National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1P50HD104224-01, “Massachusetts General Hospital–Harvard Center for Reproductive Medicine”) and the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation. Patch was funded by Wellcome grant 108413/A/15/D awarded to Wellcome Connecting Science. Thomas receives doctoral study funding from Knowledge Economy Skills (KESS2) Scholarship and the Genomics Partnership Wales.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This scoping review did not involve human subjects and was exempt from ethics board review.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Supplemental Table S1 provides the data extraction table for all identified articles.

Acknowledgments

We thank biomedical research librarian Alicia Livinski for her consultation and assistance with the literature search.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

The following reports the search strategy (and terms) used to identify articles from each respective database (PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection).
  • PubMed (National Library of Medicine)
(nursing[majr] OR nurses[majr] OR nurse[tiab] OR nurses[tiab] OR nursing[tiab] OR midwife[tiab] OR midwives[tiab] OR midwifery[tiab] OR midwifery[majr] OR “nursing education research”[mesh] OR “education, nursing”[mesh] OR “nursing research”[mesh]) AND (genes[majr] OR gene[tiab] OR genes[tiab] OR genomic*[tiab] OR genomics[majr] OR omics[tiab] OR omic[tiab] OR genetic[tiab] OR genetics[tiab] OR genetics[majr] OR “genetics, medical”[mesh] OR transcriptome*[tiab] OR transcriptomic*[tiab] OR “Transcriptome”[Majr] OR proteome*[tiab] OR proteomic*[tiab] OR “Proteomics”[Majr] OR “Proteome”[Majr] OR proteogenomic*[tiab] OR epigenetic*[tiab] OR epigenom*[tiab] OR “Epigenome”[Majr] OR “Epigenomics”[Majr] OR nutrigenetic*[tiab] OR nutrigenom*[tiab] OR “nutritional genetic*”[tiab] OR “nutritional genomic*”[tiab] OR “Nutrigenomics”[Majr] OR metabolomic*[tiab] OR metabolome*[tiab] OR “Metabolomics”[Majr] OR “Metabolome”[Majr] OR pharmacogenetic*[tiab] OR pharmacogenomic*[tiab] OR “Pharmacogenetics”[Majr] OR microbiome*[tiab] OR microbiomic*[tiab] OR “Microbiota”[Majr] OR “precision healthcare”[tiab] OR “precision health care”[tiab] OR “precision medicine”[tiab] OR “precision science”[tiab] OR “personalized medicine”[tiab] OR “personalized healthcare”[tiab] OR “personalized health care”[tiab] OR “personalised medicine”[tiab] OR “individualized medicine”[tiab] OR “individualised medicine”[tiab] OR “personalised healthcare”[tiab] OR “personalised health care”[tiab] OR “family history”[tiab] OR “family histories”[tiab] OR “family medical history”[tiab] OR “family medical histories”[tiab] OR “symptom science”[tiab] OR symptomic*[tiab] OR “Genetic Counseling”[Mesh] OR “Precision Medicine”[Mesh]) AND (english[Filter]) AND ((“2012/01/01”[Date-Publication]: “2020/12/31”[Date-Publication]))
  • CINAHL Plus (Ebscohost)
#1
Title: (nurse OR nurses OR nursing OR midwife OR midwives OR midwifery)
#2
Abstract: (nurse OR nurses OR nursing OR midwife OR midwives OR midwifery)
#3
Exact Subject Heading: (MH “Nurses”) OR (MH “Midwifery”) OR (MH “Midwives”) OR (MH “Nursing as a Profession”) OR (MH “Research, Nursing”) OR (MH “Research, Midwifery”) OR (MH “Nursing Science”) OR (MH “Education, Nursing”)
#4
#1 OR #2 OR #3 = 648,367
#5
Title: (gene OR genes OR genomic OR genomics OR omics OR omic OR genetic OR genetics OR transcriptome* OR transcriptomic* OR proteome* OR proteomic* OR epigenetic* OR epigenom* OR nutrigenetic* OR nutrigenom* OR “nutritional genetic*” OR “nutritional genomic*” OR metabolomic* OR metabolome* OR pharmacogenetic* OR pharmacogenomic* OR microbiome* OR microbiomic* OR “precision healthcare” OR “precision health care” OR “precision medicine” OR “precision science” OR “personalized medicine” OR “personalized healthcare” OR “personalized health care” OR “personalised medicine” OR “personalised healthcare” OR “personalised health care” OR “individualized medicine” OR “individualised medicine” OR “family history” OR “family histories” OR “family medical history” OR “family medical histories” OR “symptom science” OR symptomic* OR symptomomic*)
#6
Abstract: (gene OR genes OR genomic OR genomics OR omics OR omic OR genetic OR genetics OR transcriptome* OR transcriptomic* OR proteome* OR proteomic* OR epigenetic* OR epigenom* OR nutrigenetic* OR nutrigenom* OR “nutritional genetic*” OR “nutritional genomic*” OR metabolomic* OR metabolome* OR pharmacogenetic* OR pharmacogenomic* OR microbiome* OR microbiomic* OR “precision healthcare” OR “precision health care” OR “precision medicine” OR “precision science” OR “personalized medicine” OR “personalized healthcare” OR “personalized health care” OR “personalised medicine” OR “personalised healthcare” OR “personalised health care” OR “individualized medicine” OR “individualised medicine” OR “family history” OR “family histories” OR “family medical history” OR “family medical histories” OR “symptom science” OR symptomic* OR symptomomic*)
#7
Exact Subject Heading: (MH “Genetics”) OR (MH “Genes”) OR (MH “Genetics, Medical”) OR (MH “Nutrigenomics”) OR (MH “Nutrigenetics”) OR (MH “Genomics”) OR (MH “Pharmacogenetics”) OR (MH “Genetics Nursing”) OR (MH “Proteomics”) OR (MH “Metabolomics”) OR (MH “Proteogenomics”) OR (MH “Epigenomics”) OR (MH “Individualized Medicine”) OR (MH “Family History”)
  • Embase (Elsevier)
(nurse OR nurses OR nursing OR midwife OR midwives OR midwifery OR ‘nursing’/exp/mj OR ‘nursing research’/exp OR ‘nurse’/exp/mj OR ‘midwife’/exp OR ‘nursing education’/exp OR ‘nursing science’/exp) AND (gene OR genes OR genomic* OR omics OR omic OR genetic OR genetics OR transcriptome* OR transcriptomic* OR proteome* OR proteomic* OR proteogenomic* OR epigenetic* OR epigenom* OR nutrigenetic* OR nutrigenom* OR “nutritional genetic*” OR “nutritional genomic*” OR metabolomic* OR metabolome* OR pharmacogenetic* OR pharmacogenomic* OR microbiome* OR microbiomic* OR “precision healthcare” OR “precision health care” OR “precision medicine” OR “precision science” OR “personalized medicine” OR “personalized healthcare” OR “personalized health care” OR “personalised medicine” OR “individualized medicine” OR “individualised medicine” OR “personalised healthcare” OR “personalised health care” OR “family history” OR “family histories” OR “family medical history” OR “family medical histories” OR “symptom science” OR symptomic* OR symptomomic* OR ‘gene’/exp/mj OR ‘genetics’/exp/mj OR ‘genomics’/exp/mj OR ‘medical genetics’/exp OR ‘omics’/exp OR ‘transcriptomics’/exp/mj OR ‘transcriptome’/exp OR ‘metabolomics’/exp/mj OR ‘metabolome’/exp OR ‘proteomics’/exp/mj OR ‘proteome’/exp OR ‘epigenetics’/exp/mj OR ‘epigenome’/exp OR ‘nutrigenomics’/exp/mj OR ‘pharmacogenetics’/exp/mj OR ‘pharmacogenomics’/exp/mj OR ‘personalized medicine’/exp OR ‘genetic counseling’/exp OR ‘genetic counselor’/exp)
  • Web of Science: Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics)
TS = ((nurse OR nurses OR nursing OR midwife OR midwives OR midwifery) AND (gene OR genes OR genomic* OR omics OR omic OR genetic OR genetics OR transcriptome* OR transcriptomic* OR proteome* OR proteomic* OR proteogenomic* OR epigenetic* OR epigenom* OR nutrigenetic* OR nutrigenom* OR “nutritional genetic*” OR “nutritional genomic*” OR metabolomic* OR metabolome* OR pharmacogenetic* OR pharmacogenomic* OR microbiome* OR microbiomic* OR “precision healthcare” OR “precision health care” OR “precision medicine” OR “precision science” OR “personalized medicine” OR “personalized healthcare” OR “personalized health care” OR “personalised medicine” OR “individualized medicine” OR “individualised medicine” OR “personalised healthcare” OR “personalised health care” OR “family history” OR “family histories” OR “family medical history” OR “family medical histories” OR “symptom science” OR symptomic* OR symptomomic*))

Appendix B

Cochrane Collaboration outcome taxonomy domains (underlined), respective sub-domains (numbered), and dimensions (bulleted). This scoping review reports on the “Healthcare Provider Oriented Outcomes” domain.
  • Domain: Healthcare Provider Oriented Outcomes
  • Sub-domain: Knowledge and Understanding
    • attitudes, behavior of health professionals
    • level of knowledge or skills
  • Sub-domain: Consultation process
    • practice style (e.g., patient-centeredness)
    • provision of interventions
  • Domain: Health Service Delivery Oriented Outcomes
  • Sub-domain: Service Delivery Level
    • adverse events
    • health economic outcomes (e.g., costs, service utilization)
    • service utilization (e.g., admission, length of stay, readmission)
  • Sub-domain: Related to Research
    • involvement in research
    • recruitment and retention to trials
    • feedback from participation in trials
  • Sub-domain: Societal or Governmental
    • health care monitoring (e.g., audit, accreditation, quality of care)
    • health care planning (e.g., priority setting, policy, legislation)
  • Domain: Consumer Oriented Outcomes
  • Sub-domain: Knowledge and Understanding
    • information access and use
    • knowledge acquisition (i.e., level of knowledge or increased knowledge)
    • retention of information, ability to recall information
    • patient satisfaction with the information provided (see Satisfaction)
    • psychological stress due to receiving information (see Psychological health)
  • Sub-domain: Communication
    • communication aides
    • communication enhancement
    • communication skills or techniques
  • Sub-domain: Patient Involvement in Care Process
    • decision-making
    • patient-held information
  • Sub-domain: Evaluation of Care
    • consumer–professional interactions experience
    • perceptions and ratings of care or interventions
    • satisfaction
  • Sub-domain: Support
    • practical support
    • psychosocial support
  • Sub-domain: Skills Acquisition
    • activities of daily living skills
    • communication skills or techniques
    • self-care skills
    • social skills
    • symptom control skills
  • Sub-domain: Health Status and Wellbeing
    • physical health (patient or carer)
    • psychological health (patient or carer)
    • psychosocial outcomes
  • Sub-domain: Health Behavior
    • attitudes
    • compliance/adherence
    • health-enhancing lifestyle or behavior outcomes
    • risk-taking behavior
    • use of interventions or services
  • Sub-domain: Treatment Outcomes
    • adverse outcomes
    • clinical assessments (e.g., wound healing, symptom resolution)
    • pain assessment or control
    • physiological measures (e.g., blood pressure, blood glucose level)

References

  1. Calzone, K.A.; Jenkins, J.; Nicol, N.; Skirton, H.; Feero, W.G.; Green, E.D. Relevance of genomics to healthcare and nursing practice. J. Nurs. Sch. 2013, 45, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Triebold, M.; Skov, K.; Erickson, L.; Olimb, S.; Puumala, S.; Wallace, I.; Stein, Q. Geographical analysis of the distribution of certified genetic counselors in the United States. J. Genet. Couns. 2021, 30, 448–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jenkins, J.; Grady, P.A.; Collins, F.S. Nurses and the genomic revolution. J. Nurs. Sch. 2005, 37, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. World Health Organization. State of the World’s Nursing 2020: Investing in Education, Jobs and Leadership. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003279 (accessed on 15 September 2023).
  5. Calzone, K.A.; Jenkins, J.; Bakos, A.D.; Cashion, A.K.; Donaldson, N.; Feero, W.G.; Feetham, S.; Grady, P.A.; Hinshaw, A.S.; Knebel, A.R.; et al. A blueprint for genomic nursing science. J. Nurs. Sch. 2013, 45, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Conley, Y.P.; Heitkemper, M.; McCarthy, D.; Anderson, C.M.; Corwin, E.J.; Daack-Hirsch, S.; Dorsey, S.G.; Gregory, K.E.; Groer, M.W.; Henly, S.J.; et al. Educating future nursing scientists: Recommendations for integrating omics content in PhD programs. Nurs. Outlook 2015, 63, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kirk, M.; Calzone, K.; Arimori, N.; Tonkin, E. Genetics-genomics competencies and nursing regulation. J. Nurs. Sch. 2011, 43, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lea, D.H. Position statement: Integrating genetics competencies into baccalaureate and advanced nursing education. Nurs. Outlook 2002, 50, 167–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Calzone, K.A.; Jenkins, J.; Culp, S.; Badzek, L. Hospital nursing leadership-led interventions increased genomic awareness and educational intent in Magnet settings. Nurs. Outlook 2018, 66, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Williams, J.K.; Cashion, A.K.; Shekar, S.; Ginsburg, G.S. Genomics, clinical research, and learning health care systems: Strategies to improve patient care. Nurs. Outlook 2016, 64, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Williams, J.K.; Feero, W.G.; Leonard, D.G.; Coleman, B. Implementation science, genomic precision medicine, and improved health: A new path forward? Nurs. Outlook 2017, 65, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Williams, J.K.; Katapodi, M.C.; Starkweather, A.; Badzek, L.; Cashion, A.K.; Coleman, B.; Fu, M.R.; Lyon, D.; Weaver, M.T.; Hickey, K.T. Advanced nursing practice and research contributions to precision medicine. Nurs. Outlook 2016, 64, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Williams, J.K.; Feero, W.G.; Veenstra, D.L.; Starkweather, A.; Cashion, A.K. Considerations in initiating genomic screening programs in health care systems. Nurs. Outlook 2018, 66, 570–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Acorn, M. Chief Nurse Blog: Nursing Matters April 2022. In International Council of Nurses. 2022. Available online: https://www.icn.ch/news/chief-nurse-blog-nursing-matters-april-2022 (accessed on 15 September 2023).
  15. Morris, Z.S.; Wooding, S.; Grant, J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: Understanding time lags in translational research. J. R. Soc. Med. 2011, 104, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hill, S.; Lowe, D.B.; McKenzie, J.E. Identifying outcomes of importance to communication and participation. In The Knowledge Patient: Communication and Participation in Health; Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  17. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.; Colquhoun, H.; Kastner, M.; Levac, D.; Ng, C.; Sharpe, J.P.; Wilson, K.; et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2016, 16, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Covidence Systematic Review Software. 2023. Available online: www.covidence.org (accessed on 15 September 2023).
  20. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Saunders, C.H.; Sierpe, A.; von Plessen, C.; Kennedy, A.M.; Leviton, L.C.; Bernstein, S.L.; Goldwag, J.; King, J.R.; Marx, C.M.; Pogue, J.A.; et al. Practical thematic analysis: A guide for multidisciplinary health services research teams engaging in qualitative analysis. BMJ 2023, 381, e074256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Maradiegue, A.H.; Edwards, Q.T.; Seibert, D. 5-years later—Have faculty integrated medical genetics into nurse practitioner curriculum? Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Sch. 2013, 10, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Butts, B.; Alford, T.; Brewster, G.; Carlson, N.; Coleman, E.; Davis, E.; Ferranti, E.; Kimble, L.P.; Narapareddy, L.; Wells, J.; et al. Adaptation of Metabolomics and Microbiomic Research Protocols During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Nurs. Res. 2022, 71, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mahon, S.M. Allocation of work activities in a comprehensive cancer genetics program. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2013, 17, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Koleck, T.A.; Bender, C.M.; Sereika, S.M.; Ahrendt, G.; Jankowitz, R.C.; McGuire, K.P.; Ryan, C.M.; Conley, Y.P. Apolipoprotein E genotype and cognitive function in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2014, 41, E313–E325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ward, L.D.; French, B.F.; Barbosa-Leiker, C.; Iverson, A.E. Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory to Validate the Genomic Nursing Concept Inventory. J. Nurs. Educ. 2016, 55, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jenkins, J.F.; Calzone, K.A. Are nursing faculty ready to integrate genomic content into curricula? Nurse Educ. 2012, 37, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Johengen, E.K.; Ward, K.M.; Coe, A.B.; Pasternak, A.L. Assessing the knowledge, perceptions, and practices of primary care clinicians toward pharmacogenetics. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2020, 4, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kronk, R.; Colbert, A.; Lengetti, E. Assessment of a Competency-Based Undergraduate Course on Genetics and Genomics. Nurse Educ. 2018, 43, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wesmiller, S.W.; Bender, C.M.; Sereika, S.M.; Ahrendt, G.; Bonaventura, M.; Bovbjerg, D.H.; Conley, Y. Association between serotonin transport polymorphisms and postdischarge nausea and vomiting in women following breast cancer surgery. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2014, 41, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Dodson, C. Attitudes of oncology nurses concerning pharmacogenomics. Per. Med. 2015, 12, 559–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Arguello, L.E.; Mauldin, K.; Goyal, D. Atypical Eating Disinhibition Genotype. J. Nurse Pract. 2018, 14, 491–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hanish, A.E.; Cohen, M.Z.; Starr, L.J. Autism spectrum disorder and genetic testing: Parental perceptions and decision-making. J. Spec. Pediatr. Nurs. 2018, 23, e12211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rutledge, C.; Gould, C.; Lee, P.C.; Sowden, W.; Lustik, M.; Egan, K. Behavioral Health Screening in Military Cystic Fibrosis Centers: A Survey. Mil. Med. 2022, usac161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Vandiver, K.M.; Erdei, E.; Mayer, A.G.; Ricciardi, C.; O’Leary, M.; Burke, K.; Zelikoff, J.T. Building Environmental Health and Genomics Literacy among Healthcare Providers Serving Vulnerable Communities: An Innovative Educational Framework. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Read, C.Y.; Ricciardi, C.E.; Gruhl, A.; Williams, L.; Vandiver, K.M. Building Genetic Competence Through Partnerships and Interactive Models. J. Nurs Educ. 2016, 55, 300–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Smith, M.G.; Royer, J.; Mann, J.; McDermott, S.; Valdez, R. Capture-recapture methodology to study rare conditions using surveillance data for fragile X syndrome and muscular dystrophy. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2017, 12, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Dettwyler, S.A.; Zielinski, R.E.; Yashar, B.M. Certified Nurse-Midwives’ Experiences With Provision of Prenatal Genetic Screening: A Case for Interprofessional Collaboration. J. Perinat. Neonatal Nurs. 2019, 33, E3–E14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Driessnack, M.; Gallo, A.M. Children ‘draw-and-tell’ their knowledge of genetics. Pediatr. Nurs. 2013, 39, 173–180. [Google Scholar]
  40. Palomaki, G.E.; Kloza, E.M.; O’Brien, B.M.; Eklund, E.E.; Lambert-Messerlian, G.M. The clinical utility of DNA-based screening for fetal aneuploidy by primary obstetrical care providers in the general pregnancy population. Genet. Med. 2017, 19, 778–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Anderson, J.L.; Kruisselbrink, T.M.; Lisi, E.C.; Hughes, T.M.; Steyermark, J.M.; Winkler, E.M.; Berg, C.M.; Vierkant, R.A.; Gupta, R.; Ali, A.H.; et al. Clinically Actionable Findings Derived From Predictive Genomic Testing Offered in a Medical Practice Setting. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2021, 96, 1407–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Unertl, K.M.; Jaffa, H.; Field, J.R.; Price, L.; Peterson, J.F. Clinician Perspectives on Using Pharmacogenomics in Clinical Practice. Per. Med. 2015, 12, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Brandt, D.S.; Shinkunas, L.; Hillis, S.L.; Daack-Hirsch, S.E.; Driessnack, M.; Downing, N.R.; Liu, M.F.; Shah, L.L.; Williams, J.K.; Simon, C.M. A closer look at the recommended criteria for disclosing genetic results: Perspectives of medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers, and institutional review board chairs. J. Genet. Couns. 2013, 22, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cohen, S.A.; Nixon, D.M. A collaborative approach to cancer risk assessment services using genetic counselor extenders in a multi-system community hospital. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2016, 159, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mowbray, C.; Turner, J.; Gai, J.; Jacobs, S. Comfort with Pharmacogenetic Testing Amongst Pediatric Oncology Providers and Their Patients. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. Nurs. 2022, 39, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Newcomb, P.; Hudlow, R.; Heilskov, J.; Martinez, C.D.; Le, H. Conversations with children about DNA and genes using an original children’s book. J. Pediatr. Health Care 2014, 28, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Knisely, M.R.; Carpenter, J.S.; Draucker, C.B.; Skaar, T.; Broome, M.E.; Holmes, A.M.; Von Ah, D. CYP2D6 drug-gene and drug-drug-gene interactions among patients prescribed pharmacogenetically actionable opioids. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2017, 38, 107–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rad, E.J.; Mirza, A.A.; Chhatwani, L.; Purington, N.; Mohabir, P.K. Cystic fibrosis telemedicine in the era of COVID-19. JAMIA Open 2022, 5, ooac005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hickey, K.T.; Sciacca, R.R.; McCarthy, M.S. Descriptive survey of Summer Genetics Institute nurse graduates in the USA. Nurs. Health Sci. 2013, 15, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ward, L.D.; Haberman, M.; Barbosa-Leiker, C. Development and psychometric evaluation of the genomic nursing concept inventory. J. Nurs. Educ. 2014, 53, 511–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jabaley, T.; Underhill-Blazey, M.L.; Berry, D.L. Development and Testing of a Decision Aid for Unaffected Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation. J. Cancer Educ. 2020, 35, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Katapodi, M.C.; Jung, M.; Schafenacker, A.M.; Milliron, K.J.; Mendelsohn-Victor, K.E.; Merajver, S.D.; Northouse, L.L. Development of a Web-based Family Intervention for BRCA Carriers and Their Biological Relatives: Acceptability, Feasibility, and Usability Study. JMIR Cancer 2018, 4, e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kuhl, A.; van Calcar, S.; Baker, M.; Seroogy, C.M.; Rice, G.; Scott Schwoerer, J. Development of carrier testing for common inborn errors of metabolism in the Wisconsin Plain population. Genet. Med. 2017, 19, 352–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Torbert, N.; Neumann, M.; Birge, N.; Perkins, D.; Ehrhardt, E.; Weaver, M.S. Discipline-Specific Perspectives on Caring for Babies with Trisomy 13 or 18 in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Am. J. Perinatol. 2020, 39, 1074–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Braid, S.M.; Okrah, K.; Shetty, A.; Corrada Bravo, H. DNA Methylation Patterns in Cord Blood of Neonates Across Gestational Age. Nurs. Res. 2017, 66, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Jenerette, C.M.; Brewer, C.A.; Silva, S.; Tanabe, P. Does Attendance at a Sickle Cell Educational Conference Improve Clinician Knowledge and Attitude Toward Patients with Sickle Cell Disease? Pain Manag. Nurs. 2016, 17, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Underwood, S.M.; Kelber, S. Enhancing the Collection, Discussion and Use of Family Health History by Consumers, Nurses and Other Health Care Providers: Because Family Health History Matters. Nurs. Clin. N. Am. 2015, 50, 509–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Regan, M.; Engler, M.B.; Coleman, B.; Daack-Hirsch, S.; Calzone, K.A. Establishing the Genomic Knowledge Matrix for Nursing Science. J. Nurs. Sch. 2019, 51, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Tully, L.A.; Calzone, K.A.; Cashion, A.K. Establishing the Omics Nursing Science & Education Network. J. Nurs. Sch. 2020, 52, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Catherino, A.B.; Halupa, C.; Sharara, F.I.; Bromer, J.G.; Hayward, B.; Catherino, W.H. Evaluation of an embryology and genetic testing patient counseling education intervention for reproductive endocrinology nurses. Fertil. Steril. 2019, 112, 275–282.e271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, B.; Shahangian, S.; Taylor, T.H., Jr.; Yesupriya, A.; Greene, C.; Curry, V.J.; Zehnbauer, B. Evaluation of Diverse Health Professionals’ Learning Experience in a Continuing Education Activity for Quality Practices in Molecular Genetic Testing. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2016, 29, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Alexander, K.; Cooper, B.; Paul, S.M.; West, C.; Yates, P.; Kober, K.M.; Aouizerat, B.E.; Miaskowski, C. Evidence of associations between cytokine gene polymorphisms and quality of life in patients with cancer and their family caregivers. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2014, 41, E267–E281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rogers, M.A.; Lizer, S.; Doughty, A.; Hayden, B.; Klein, C.J. Expanding RN Scope of Knowledge--Genetics/Genomics: The New Frontier. J. Nurses Prof. Dev. 2017, 33, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Coleman, B.; Powell-Young, Y.M.; Martinez, B.; Wooters, J. Exploration of African-American Nurses’ Perceptions Toward Seeking and Utilizing Genetic Information. J. Natl. Black Nurses Assoc. 2018, 29, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  65. Bashore, L.M.; Daniels, G.; Borchers, L.; Howington, L.L.; Cheek, D.J. Facilitating faculty competency to integrate genomics into nursing curriculum within a private US University. Nurs. Res. Rev. 2018, 8, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Read, C.Y.; Ward, L.D. Faculty Performance on the Genomic Nursing Concept Inventory. J. Nurs. Sch. 2016, 48, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ford, C.D.; Rooks, R.N.; Montgomery, M. Family health history and future nursing practice: Implications for undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2016, 21, 100–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Voss, J.G.; Dobra, A.; Morse, C.; Kovacs, J.A.; Danner, R.L.; Munson, P.J.; Logan, C.; Rangel, Z.; Adelsberger, J.W.; McLaughlin, M.; et al. Fatigue-Related Gene Networks Identified in CD14+ Cells Isolated From HIV-Infected Patients-Part I: Research Findings. Biol. Res. Nurs. 2013, 15, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Saligan, L.N.; Rivera, R.R. Filipino-American Nurses’ Knowledge, Perceptions, Beliefs and Practice of Genetics and Genomics. Philipp. J. Nurs. 2014, 84, 48–58. [Google Scholar]
  70. Dodson, C.H.; Baker, E. Focus group testing of a mobile app for pharmacogenetic-guided dosing. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2021, 33, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Schutte, D.L.; Mukhopadhyay, N.; Holwerda, T.; Sluka, K.; Rakel, B.; Govil, M. Genetic Predictors of Knee Pain in Persons With Mild to Moderate Osteoarthritis. Res. Gerontol. Nurs. 2020, 13, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Williams, L.; Dansereau, C.; Trainor, B. A Genetics Learning Program for Nurses Caring for Children Treated With Ex Vivo Autologous Gene Therapy. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2019, 50, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Downing, N.R.; Williams, J.K.; Daack-Hirsch, S.; Driessnack, M.; Simon, C.M. Genetics specialists’ perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. Patient Educ. Couns. 2013, 90, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jenkins, J.; Calzone, K.A. Genomics nursing Faculty Champion initiative. Nurse Educ. 2014, 39, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yoes, M.-V.; Thomas, L. Hereditary Cancer Genetic Risk Assessment, Testing, and Counseling: A Nurse Practitioner–Led Program in a Community Setting. J. Nurse Pract. 2020, 16, 660–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Appel, S.J.; Cleiment, R.J. Identifying Women at Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome Utilizing Breast Care Nurse Navigation at Mammography and Imaging Centers. J. Natl. Black Nurses Assoc. 2015, 26, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  77. McAllister, K.A.; Schmitt, M.L. Impact of a nurse navigator on genomic testing and timely treatment decision making in patients with breast cancer. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2015, 19, 510–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Clark, R. Implementation of a Risk Assessment Process in a Primary Clinic to Identify Women at High Risk for Developing Breast Cancer Based on Family History; University of Louisiana at Lafayette: Lafayette, LA, USA, 2016; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  79. Marvell, L. Implementing the basic principles of biomarker use in oncology nursing: Enhancing knowledge and practice through an elearning module. Can. Oncol. Nurs. J. 2017, 27, 401–402. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  80. Cohen, S.A.; McIlvried, D.E. Improving access with a collaborative approach to cancer genetic counseling services: A pilot study. Community Oncol. 2013, 10, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Whitt, K.J.; Macri, C.; O’Brien, T.J.; Wright, S. Improving nurse practitioners’ competence with genetics: Effectiveness of an online course. J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2016, 28, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Temkin, S.M.; Smeltzer, M.P.; Dawkins, M.D.; Boehmer, L.M.; Senter, L.; Black, D.R.; Blank, S.V.; Yemelyanova, A.; Magliocco, A.M.; Finkel, M.A.; et al. Improving the quality of care for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Program components, implementation barriers, and recommendations. Cancer 2022, 128, 654–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Graff, S.L.; Holder, J.M.; Sears, L.E.; Kurbegov, D. Increase in Genetic Counseling and Testing Referrals After Breast Cancer Pathway Implementation. JCO Oncol. Pract. 2020, 16, e1481–e1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. LaRonde, M.P.; Connor, J.A.; Cerrato, B.; Chiloyan, A.; Lisanti, A.J. Individualized Family-Centered Developmental Care for Infants With Congenital Heart Disease in the Intensive Care Unit. Am. J. Crit. Care 2022, 31, e10–e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Newcomb, P.; True, B.; Wells, J.N.; Walsh, J.; Pehl, S. Informing New Mothers about Newborn Screening Bloodspot Repositories during Postpartum Hospitalization. MCN Am. J Matern. Child Nurs. 2019, 44, 332–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. O’Keefe, L.C.; Koelle, P.; McGee, Z.; Dewberry, L.S.; Wright, C.; Stallings, J.E.; Gates, E.; Chittur, K. Innovations in Worksite Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections and the Occupational Health Nurse. Workplace Health Saf. 2019, 67, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Calzone, K.A.; Jenkins, J.; Culp, S.; Caskey, S.; Badzek, L. Introducing a New Competency Into Nursing Practice. J. Nurs. Regul. 2014, 5, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Quinn, G.P.; Knapp, C.; Sehovic, I.; Ung, D.; Bowman, M.; Gonzalez, L.; Vadaparampil, S.T. Knowledge and Educational Needs about Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) among Oncology Nurses. J. Clin. Med. 2014, 3, 632–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Newcomb, P.; True, B.; Walsh, J.; Dyson, M.; Lockwood, S.; Douglas, B. Maternal attitudes and knowledge about newborn screening. MCN Am. J. Matern. Child Nurs. 2013, 38, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Jones, T.; Freeman, K.; Ackerman, M.; Trivedi, M.S.; Silverman, T.; Shapiro, P.; Kukafka, R.; Crew, K.D. Mental Illness and BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing Intention Among Multiethnic Women Undergoing Screening Mammography. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2020, 47, E13–E24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Withycombe, J.S.; Eldridge, R.; Jin, Y.; Gu, H.; Castellino, S.M.; Sears, D.D. Metabolites Associated with Fatigue and Physical Activity in Childhood Cancer. Biol. Res. Nurs. 2022, 24, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jenkins, J.; Calzone, K.A.; Caskey, S.; Culp, S.; Weiner, M.; Badzek, L. Methods of genomic competency integration in practice. J. Nurs. Sch. 2015, 47, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Coleman, B.; Calzone, K.A.; Jenkins, J.; Paniagua, C.; Rivera, R.; Hong, O.S.; Spruill, I.; Bonham, V. Multi-ethnic minority nurses’ knowledge and practice of genetics and genomics. J. Nurs. Sch. 2014, 46, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Spruill, I.J.; Coleman, B.L.; Powell-Young, Y.M.; Williams, T.H.; Magwood, G. Non-Biological (Fictive Kin and Othermothers): Embracing the Need for a Culturally Appropriate Pedigree Nomenclature in African-American Families. J. Natl. Black Nurses Assoc. 2014, 25, 23–30. [Google Scholar]
  95. Dodson, C. Oncology Nurses’ Knowledge of Pharmacogenomics Before and After Implementation of an Education Module. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2018, 45, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Henker, R.; Khalil, H.; Sereika, S.; Feng, D.; Alexander, S.; Conley, Y.; Gruen, G.; Tarkin, I.; Siska, P. OPRM1 and COMT Gene Gene Interaction is Associated with Postoperative Pain and Opioid Consumption after Orthopedic Trauma Surgery—28th Annual Scientific Sessions Abstracts. Nurs. Res. 2016, 65, E50–E51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Resnick, B.; Klinedinst, N.J.; Yerges-Armstrong, L.; Magaziner, J.; Orwig, D.; Hochberg, M.C.; Gruber-Baldini, A.L.; Hicks, G.E.; Dorsey, S.G. Pain, Genes, and Function in the Post-Hip Fracture Period. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2016, 17, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Flowers, E.; Martin, M.; Abid, H.; Binford, S.; Mackin, L. Pairing pedagogical and genomic advances to prepare advanced practice nurses for the era of precision health. BMC Med. Educ. 2019, 19, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Williams, T.; Dale, R. A Partnership Approach to Genetic and Genomic Graduate Nursing Curriculum: Report of a New Course’s Impact on Student Confidence. J. Nurs. Educ. 2016, 55, 574–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Farrell, R.M.; Nutter, B.; Agatisa, P.K. Patient-centered prenatal counseling: Aligning obstetric healthcare professionals with needs of pregnant women. Women Health 2015, 55, 280–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hersperger, C.L.; Boucher, J.; Theroux, R. Paving the Way: A Grounded Theory of Discovery and Decision Making for Individuals With the CDH1 Marker. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2020, 47, 446–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Manzor Mitrzyk, B.; Plegue, M.A.; Kadri, R.; Danak, S.U.; Hubbard, J.D.; Kaip, E.A.; Roberson, D.N.; Ellingrod, V.L.; Farris, K.B.; Ruffin, M.T.; et al. Pharmacogenomic testing for mental health (Part I): Documenting early adopter perceptions of use for eight scenarios. Pers. Med. 2021, 18, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. White, M.M.; Walker, D.K.; Howington, L.L.; Cheek, D.J. Pharmacogenomics and Psychiatric Nursing. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2019, 40, 194–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Pierce, J.D.; Shen, Q.H.; Peltzer, J.; Thimmesch, A.; Hiebert, J.B. A pilot study exploring the effects of ubiquinol on brain genomics after traumatic brain injury. Nurs. Outlook 2017, 65, S44–S52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Edelman, E.A.; Tanner, P.C.; Taber, K.A.; McConnell, S.C.; Nicholson, L.J.; Ingram, T.M.; Steinmark, L.; Reed, E.K. Provider engagement in precision oncology education: An exploratory analysis of online continuing medical education data. Per. Med. 2019, 16, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mathis, H.C. Reducing the Intimidation Factor of Teaching Genetics and Genomics in Nursing. J. Nurs. Educ. 2022, 61, 261–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Thompson, C.A.; Tiedt, J.; Beqiri, M.; Smith, D.W. A Retrospective Evaluation of a Nurse Practitioner-Led Cancer Genetics Program. J. Nurse Pract. 2022, 18, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Baker, S.K. Rural Arizona Nurse Practitioners’ Knowledge of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 2016; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  109. Pal, T.; Cragun, D.; Lewis, C.; Doty, A.; Rodriguez, M.; Radford, C.; Thompson, Z.; Kim, J.; Vadaparampil, S.T. A statewide survey of practitioners to assess knowledge and clinical practices regarding hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomark. 2013, 17, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Sloand, E.; Bourguet, A.N.; Engle-Pratt, W.; Bodurtha, J. Striving for Precision: Enhancing Genetic Competency in Primary Care Nurse Practitioner Students. J. Nurs. Educ. 2018, 57, 690–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Calzone, K.A.; Jenkins, J.; Yates, J.; Cusack, G.; Wallen, G.R.; Liewehr, D.J.; Steinberg, S.M.; McBride, C. Survey of nursing integration of genomics into nursing practice. J. Nurs. Sch. 2012, 44, 428–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Kashani, M.; Eliasson, A.; Vernalis, M.; Bailey, K.; Terhaar, M. A systematic approach incorporating family history improves identification of cardiovascular disease risk. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2015, 30, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Calzone, K.A.; Culp, S.; Jenkins, J.; Caskey, S.; Edwards, P.B.; Fuchs, M.A.; Reints, A.; Stange, B.; Questad, J.; Badzek, L. Test-Retest Reliability of the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey Instrument. J. Nurs. Meas. 2016, 24, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Williams, P.H.; Nemeth, L.S.; Sanner, J.E.; Frazier, L.Q. Thematic analysis of cardiac care patients’ explanations for declining contribution to a genomic research-based biobank. Am. J. Crit. Care 2013, 22, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Paljevic, E.D. A Transformative Impact of Theory in Clinical Practice: A Study in a Cardiogenetics Clinic. Res. Theory Nurs. Pract. 2020, 34, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Cherry, C.; Ropka, M.; Lyle, J.; Napolitano, L.; Daly, M.B. Understanding the needs of women considering risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Cancer Nurs. 2013, 36, E33–E38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Smania, M. Use of a Point-of-Care Tool to Improve Nurse Practitioner BRCA Knowledge. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2016, 20, 327–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. McCurry, M.K.; Rudd-Arieta, M.; Viveiros, J. Using Consensus Testing to Enhance Genomic Understanding and Teamwork in Doctoral Advanced Practice Nursing Students. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2020, 41, 168–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Murray, J.M.; Hellinger, A.; Dionne, R.; Brown, L.; Galvin, R.; Griggs, S.; Mittler, K.; Harney, K.; Manzi, S.; VanderPluym, C.; et al. Utility of a dedicated pediatric cardiac anticoagulation program: The Boston Children’s Hospital experience. Pediatr. Cardiol. 2015, 36, 842–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Plavskin, A.; Samuels, W.E.; Calzone, K.A. Validity evaluation of the genetics and genomics in nursing practice survey. Nurs. Open 2019, 6, 1404–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Powell-Young, Y.M.; Spruill, I.J. Views of Black nurses toward genetic research and testing. J. Nurs. Sch. 2013, 45, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Hash, M.G.; Walker, P.; Laferriere, H.; Melton, L.A.; Heller, L.; Phillips, J. Virtual and asynchronous teaching of computer-assisted diagnosis of genetic diseases seen in clinics. Mol. Genet. Metab. 2021, 132, S295–S296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. McCabe, M.; Ward, L.D.; Ricciardi, C. Web-Based Assessment of Genomic Knowledge Among Practicing Nurses: A Validation Study. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2016, 47, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kessler, T.A. Increasing mammography and cervical cancer knowledge and screening behaviors with an educational program. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2012, 39, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Crane, M.J.; Quinn Griffin, M.T.; Andrews, C.M.; Fitzpatrick, J.J. The level of importance and level of confidence that midwives in the United States attach to using genetics in practice. J. Midwifery Women’s Health 2012, 57, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Underhill, M.L.; Lally, R.M.; Kiviniemi, M.T.; Murekeyisoni, C.; Dickerson, S.S. Living My Family’s Story Identifying the Lived Experience in Healthy Women at Risk for Hereditary Breast Cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2012, 35, 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Calzone, K.A.; Jenkins, J.; Culp, S.; Bonham, V.L., Jr.; Badzek, L. National nursing workforce survey of nursing attitudes, knowledge and practice in genomics. Per. Med. 2013, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Pestka, E.L.; Meiers, S.J.; Shah, L.L.; Junglen, L.M.; Delgado, A. Nurses’ perceived benefits, barriers, and educational recommendations for using family pedigrees in clinical practice. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2012, 43, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Hamilton, R.; Kopin, S. Theory development from studies with young women with breast cancer who are BRCA mutation negative. ANS Adv. Nurs. Sci. 2013, 36, E41–E53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Labore, N. Transition to Self-Management: The Lived Experience of 21–25 Year Olds with Sickle Cell Disease. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA, 2012; p. 277. [Google Scholar]
  131. Martin, L.; Hutton, E.K.; Gitsels-van der Wal, J.T.; Spelten, E.R.; Kuiper, F.; Pereboom, M.T.; van Dulmen, S. Antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: An exploratory video-observational study about client-midwife communication. Midwifery 2015, 31, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Gitsels-van der Wal, J.T.; Martin, L.; Manniën, J.; Verhoeven, P.; Hutton, E.K.; Reinders, H.S. Antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: Pregnant Muslim Moroccan women’s preferences. Midwifery 2015, 31, e50–e57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Dixon, V.; Burton, N. Are midwifery clients in Ontario making informed choices about prenatal screening? Women Birth 2014, 27, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Dewell, S.; Benzies, K.; Ginn, C.; Seneviratne, C. Assessing knowledge of genomic concepts among Canadian nursing students and faculty. Int. J. Nurs. Educ. Sch. 2020, 17, 20200058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Visser, A.; Bos, W.; Prins, J.B.; Hoogerbrugge, N.; van Laarhoven, H.W.M. Breast Self-examination Education for BRCA Mutation Carriers by Clinical Nurse Specialists. Clin. Nurse Spec. 2015, 29, E1–E7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Reisinho, M.d.C.; Gomes, B.P.; Carvalho, F.; Borges, E. Caring for Adolescents with Cystic Fibrosis, in Portugal: The Nurse’s Role. Compr. Child Adolesc. Nurs. 2022, 45, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Scott, N.; O’Sullivan, J.; Asgeirsson, K.; Macmillan, D.; Wilson, E. Changing practice: Moving to a specialist nurse-led service for BRCA gene testing. Br. J. Nurs. 2020, 29, S6–S13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Martin, L.; Gitsels-van der Wal, J.T.; Pereboom, M.T.; Spelten, E.R.; Hutton, E.K.; van Dulmen, S. Clients’ psychosocial communication and midwives’ verbal and nonverbal communication during prenatal counseling for anomaly screening. Patient Educ. Couns. 2016, 99, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ingrand, I.; Defossez, G.; Richer, J.P.; Tougeron, D.; Palierne, N.; Letard, J.C.; Beauchant, M.; Ingrand, P. Colonoscopy uptake for high-risk individuals with a family history of colorectal neoplasia: A multicenter, randomized trial of tailored counseling versus standard information. Medicine 2016, 95, e4303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. van der Giessen, J.; Fransen, M.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Velthuizen, M.; van Dulmen, S.; Ausems, M. Communication about breast cancer genetic counseling with patients with limited health literacy or a migrant background: Evaluation of a training program for healthcare professionals. J. Community Genet. 2021, 12, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Gleeson, M.; Meiser, B.; Barlow-Stewart, K.; Trainer, A.H.; Tucker, K.; Watts, K.J.; Friedlander, M.; Kasparian, N. Communication and information needs of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer regarding treatment-focused genetic testing. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2013, 40, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Murakami, K.; Kutsunugi, S.; Tsujino, K.; Stone, T.E.; Ito, M.; Iida, K. Developing competencies in genetics nursing: Education intervention for perinatal and pediatric nurses. Nurs. Health Sci. 2020, 22, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Burke, S.; Barker, C.; Marshall, D. Developing education tailored to clinical roles: Genetics education for haemophilia nurses. Nurse Educ. Today 2012, 32, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Obayashi, C.; Asahara, K.; Umeda, M. Difficulties in providing genetic consultations by public health nurses in Japan. Public Health Nurs. 2022, 39, 1107–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. van der Giessen, J.A.M.; van Dulmen, S.; Velthuizen, M.E.; van den Muijsenbergh, M.; van Engelen, K.; Collée, M.; van Dalen, T.; Aalfs, C.M.; Hooning, M.J.; Spreeuwenberg, P.M.M.; et al. Effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to breast cancer genetic testing. Breast 2021, 58, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Wang, K.; Lu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Diao, M.; Yang, L. Establishment and External Validation of a Hypoxia-Derived Gene Signature for Robustly Predicting Prognosis and Therapeutic Responses in Glioblastoma Multiforme. BioMed Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 7858477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Kirk, M.; Simpson, A.; Llewellyn, M.; Tonkin, E.; Cohen, D.; Longley, M. Evaluating the role of Cardiac Genetics Nurses in inherited cardiac conditions services using a Maturity Matrix. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 2014, 13, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. O’Shea, E.; Coughlan, M.; Corrigan, H.; McKee, G. Evaluation of a nurse-led haemophilia counselling service. Br. J. Nurs. 2012, 21, 864—866, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Atienza-Carrasco, J.; Linares-Abad, M.; Padilla-Ruiz, M.; Morales-Gil, I.M. Experiences and outcomes following diagnosis of congenital foetal anomaly and medical termination of pregnancy: A phenomenological study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 1220–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Gitsels-van der Wal, J.T.; Verhoeven, P.S.; Mannien, J.; Martin, L.; Reinders, H.S.; Spelten, E.; Hutton, E.K. Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Cooley, C.; Bishop, M. Family history taking at the booking clinic—Results from a pilot audit in the West Midlands. Br. J. Midwifery 2014, 22, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. McCarthy, M.C.; De Abreu Lourenco, R.; McMillan, L.J.; Meshcheriakova, E.; Cao, A.; Gillam, L. Finding Out What Matters in Decision-Making Related to Genomics and Personalized Medicine in Pediatric Oncology: Developing Attributes to Include in a Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 2020, 13, 347–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Godino, L.; Turchetti, D.; Skirton, H. Genetic counseling: A survey to explore knowledge and attitudes of Italian nurses and midwives. Nurs. Health Sci. 2013, 15, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Kawasaki, H.; Kawasaki, M.; Iki, T.; Matsuyama, R. Genetics education program to help public health nurses improve their knowledge and enhance communities’ genetic literacy: A pilot study. BMC Nurs. 2021, 20, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Wright, H.; Zhao, L.; Birks, M.; Mills, J. Genomic Literacy of Registered Nurses and Midwives in Australia: A Cross-Sectional Survey. J. Nurs. Sch. 2019, 51, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Byrjalsen, A.; Stoltze, U.K.; Castor, A.; Wahlberg, A. Germline whole genome sequencing in pediatric oncology in Denmark-Practitioner perspectives. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 2020, 8, e1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Meiser, B.; Gleeson, M.; Watts, K.; Peate, M.; Zilliacus, E.; Barlow-Stewart, K.; Saunders, C.; Mitchell, G.; Kirk, J. Getting to the point: What women newly diagnosed with breast cancer want to know about treatment-focused genetic testing. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2012, 39, E101–E111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Balelah, S.H.; Alawaji, O.M.; Alhejaili, N.S. Health Care Provider Attitude During the Management of Sickle Cell Disease Patients, a Multicenter Study in Saudi Arabia. Indo Am. J. Pharm. Sci. 2019, 6, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Bracci, R.; Gasperini, B.; Capalbo, M.; Campanelli, T.; Caimmi, E.; Mattioli, R.; Espinosa, E.; Prospero, E. How to improve the identification of patients with cancer eligible for genetic counselling? Eur. J. Cancer Care 2020, 29, e13276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Chandrasekaran, D.; Sobocan, M.; Blyuss, O.; Miller, R.E.; Evans, O.; Crusz, S.M.; Mills-Baldock, T.; Sun, L.; Hammond, R.F.L.; Gaba, F.; et al. Implementation of Multigene Germline and Parallel Somatic Genetic Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: SIGNPOST Study. Cancers 2021, 13, 4344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Morel, K.; Colclough, K.; Vaughan, N.; Shepherd, M. Improving awareness of monogenic diabetes through a specialist genetic diabetes nurse. J. Diabetes Nurs. 2013, 17, 250–254. [Google Scholar]
  162. Ingoe, L.; Potter, A.; Musson, S.; Neely, D.; Pilkington, G.; Allen, A.J.; Reay, D.; Luvai, A.; McAnulty, C.; Camm, N.; et al. Improving the identification of patients with a genetic diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care: A strategy to achieve the NHS long term plan. Atherosclerosis 2021, 325, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Laws, T.; Pelentsov, L.; Steen, M.; Esterman, A. Informing the midwife on rare genetic disorders and their effects on mothers breastfeeding—A mixed methods study. Evid. Based Midwifery 2016, 14, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  164. Waddell-Smith, K.E.; Donoghue, T.; Oates, S.; Graham, A.; Crawford, J.; Stiles, M.K.; Aitken, A.; Skinner, J.R. Inpatient detection of cardiac-inherited disease: The impact of improving family history taking. Open Heart 2016, 3, e000329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Dagan, E.; Amit, Y.; Sokolov, L.; Litvak, P.; Barnoy, S. Integrating Genomic Professional Skills Into Nursing Practice: Results From a Large Cohort of Israeli Nurses. J. Nurs. Sch. 2021, 53, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Percival, N.; George, A.; Gyertson, J.; Hamill, M.; Fernandes, A.; Davies, E.; Rahman, N.; Banerjee, S. The integration of BRCA testing into oncology clinics. Br. J. Nurs. 2016, 25, 690–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Mor, S.; Lev-Rn, Z.; Tal, S. Is family history of coronary artery disease important in the emergency department triage? Int. Emerg. Nurs. 2020, 50, 100855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Hébert, J.; Bergeron, A.S.; Veillette, A.M.; Bouchard, K.; Nabi, H.; Dorval, M. Issues associated with a hereditary risk of cancer: Knowledge, attitudes and practices of nurses in oncology settings. Can. Oncol. Nurs. J. 2022, 32, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Gonthier, C.; Pelletier, S.; Gagnon, P.; Marin, A.; Chiquette, J.; Gagnon, B.; Roy, L.; Cléophat, J.E.; Joly, Y.; Dorval, M. Issues related to family history of cancer at the end of life: A palliative care providers’ survey. Fam. Cancer 2018, 17, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Shin, G.; Jun, M.; Kim, H.K.; Wreen, M.; Kubsch, S.M. Key competencies for Korean nurses in prenatal genetic nursing: Experiential genetic nursing knowledge, and ethics and law. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2020, 17, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Itzhaki, M. Knowledge and feelings about colorectal cancer among the Jewish adult population in Israel: A mixed methods study. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2018, 43, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Godino, L.; Turchetti, D.; Skirton, H. Knowledge of genetics and the role of the nurse in genetic health care: A survey of Italian nurses. J. Adv. Nurs. 2013, 69, 1125–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Rahma, A.T.; Elsheik, M.; Ali, B.R.; Elbarazi, I.; Patrinos, G.P.; Ahmed, L.A.; Al Maskari, F. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers toward Genetic Testing and Pharmacogenomics among Healthcare Workers in the United Arab Emirates: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Pers. Med. 2020, 10, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Nisselle, A.; Bishop, M.; Charles, T.; Morrissy, S.; King, E.; Metcalfe, S.; Gaff, C. Lessons learnt from implementing change in newborn bloodspot screening processes over more than a decade: Midwives, genetics and education. Midwifery 2019, 79, 102542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Dearing, A.; Taverner, N. Mainstreaming genetics in palliative care: Barriers and suggestions for clinical genetic services. J. Community Genet. 2018, 9, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Martin, L.; Hutton, E.K.; Spelten, E.R.; Gitsels-van der Wal, J.T.; van Dulmen, S. Midwives’ views on appropriate antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests: Do they match clients’ preferences? Midwifery 2014, 30, 600–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Wolters, W.P.G.; Dreijerink, K.M.A.; Giles, R.H.; van der Horst-Schrivers, A.N.A.; van Nesselrooij, B.; Zandee, W.T.; Timmers, H.; Seute, T.; de Herder, W.W.; Verrijn Stuart, A.A.; et al. Multidisciplinary integrated care pathway for von Hippel-Lindau disease. Cancer 2022, 128, 2871–2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Martin, L.; Gitsels-van der Wal, J.T.; Bax, C.J.; Pieters, M.J.; Reijerink-Verheij, J.; Galjaard, R.J.; Henneman, L.; Dutch, N.C. Nationwide implementation of the non-invasive prenatal test: Evaluation of a blended learning program for counselors. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0267865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Carroll, J.C.; Hayeems, R.Z.; Miller, F.A.; Barg, C.J.; Bombard, Y.; Chakraborty, P.; Potter, B.K.; Bytautas, J.P.; Tam, K.; Taylor, L.; et al. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: Role of primary care providers in caring for infants with positive screening results. Can. Fam. Physician 2021, 67, e144–e152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Berger-Höger, B.; Vitinius, F.; Fischer, H.; Beifus, K.; Köberlein-Neu, J.; Isselhard, A.; Töpper, M.; Wiedemann, R.; Rhiem, K.; Schmutzler, R.; et al. Nurse-led decision coaching by specialized nurses for healthy BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers—Adaptation and pilot testing of a curriculum for nurses: A qualitative study. BMC Nurs. 2022, 21, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Symonds, E.L.; Simpson, K.; Coats, M.; Chaplin, A.; Saxty, K.; Sandford, J.; Young, A.; Cock, C.; Fraser, R.; Bampton, P.A. A nurse-led model at public academic hospitals maintains high adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines. Med. J. Aust. 2018, 208, 492–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Kirk, M.; Morgan, R.; Tonkin, E.; McDonald, K.; Skirton, H. An objective approach to evaluating an internet-delivered genetics education resource developed for nurses: Using Google Analytics™ to monitor global visitor engagement. J. Res. Nurs. 2012, 17, 557–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. van der Steen, S.L.; Houtman, D.; Bakkeren, I.M.; Galjaard, R.H.; Polak, M.G.; Busschbach, J.J.; Tibben, A.; Riedijk, S.R. Offering a choice between NIPT and invasive PND in prenatal genetic counseling: The impact of clinician characteristics on patients’ test uptake. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2019, 27, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Goda, H.; Kawasaki, H.; Masuoka, Y.; Kohama, N.; Rahman, M.M. Opportunities and challenges of integrating genetics education about human diversity into public health nurses’ responsibilities in Japan. BMC Nurs. 2019, 18, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Li, K.C.; Birch, P.H.; Garrett, B.M.; MacPhee, M.; Adam, S.; Friedman, J.M. Parents’ Perspectives on Supporting Their Decision Making in Genome-Wide Sequencing. J. Nurs. Sch. 2016, 48, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Hsiao, C.Y.; Lee, S.H.; Chen, S.J.; Lin, S.C. Perceived knowledge and clinical comfort with genetics among Taiwanese nurses enrolled in a RN-to-BSN program. Nurse Educ. Today 2013, 33, 802–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Lee, T.Y.; Sung, L.W.; Hsu, S.S.; Liaw, J.J. A pilot study on genetic knowledge of maternity and pediatric nurses. J. Med. Sci. 2012, 32, 109–119. [Google Scholar]
  188. Reisinho, M.D.C.; Gomes, B. Portuguese adolescents with cystic fibrosis and their parents: An intervention proposal for nursing clinical practice. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2022, 64, e130–e135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Bokkers, K.; Zweemer, R.P.; Koudijs, M.J.; Stehouwer, S.; Velthuizen, M.E.; Bleiker, E.M.A.; Ausems, M. Positive experiences of healthcare professionals with a mainstreaming approach of germline genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer. Fam. Cancer 2022, 21, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Cousens, N.E.; Gaff, C.L.; Delatycki, M.B.; Metcalfe, S.A. Prenatal β-thalassemia carrier screening in Australia: Healthcare professionals’ perspectives of clinical practice. Prenat. Diagn. 2014, 34, 246–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Martin, L.; Van Dulmen, S.; Spelten, E.; De Jonge, A.; De Cock, P.; Hutton, E. Prenatal counseling for congenital anomaly tests: Parental preferences and perceptions of midwife performance. Prenat. Diagn. 2013, 33, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Gitsels-van Der Wal, J.T.; Mannien, J.; Gitsels, L.A.; Reinders, H.S.; Verhoeven, P.S.; Ghaly, M.M.; Klomp, T.; Hutton, E.K. Prenatal screening for congenital anomalies: Exploring midwives’ perceptions of counseling clients with religious backgrounds. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. St-Martin, G.; Bedard, A.; Nelmes, J.; Bedard, J.E. Preparing Nurses for Genetic Medicine: Integration of a Brief Education Session in an Undergraduate Nursing Curriculum. J. Nurs. Educ. 2017, 56, 170–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Hayeems, R.Z.; Miller, F.A.; Barg, C.J.; Bombard, Y.; Chakraborty, P.; Potter, B.K.; Patton, S.; Bytautas, J.P.; Tam, K.; Taylor, L.; et al. Primary care providers’ role in newborn screening result notification for cystic fibrosis. Can. Fam. Physician 2021, 67, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Hayeems, R.Z.; Miller, F.A.; Carroll, J.C.; Little, J.; Allanson, J.; Bytautas, J.P.; Chakraborty, P.; Wilson, B.J. Primary care role in expanded newborn screening After the heel prick test. Can. Fam. Physician 2013, 59, 861–868. [Google Scholar]
  196. Mears, J.; Abubakar, I.; Crisp, D.; Maguire, H.; Innes, J.A.; Lilley, M.; Lord, J.; Cohen, T.; Borgdorff, M.W.; Vynnycky, E.; et al. Prospective evaluation of a complex public health intervention: Lessons from an initial and follow-up cross-sectional survey of the tuberculosis strain typing service in England. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Woodall, C.A.; Thornton, H.V.; Anderson, E.C.; Ingle, S.M.; Muir, P.; Vipond, B.; Longhurst, D.; Leeming, J.P.; Beck, C.R.; Hay, A.D. Prospective Study of the Performance of Parent-Collected Nasal and Saliva Swab Samples, Compared with Nurse-Collected Swab Samples, for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Microorganisms. Microbiol. Spectr. 2021, 9, e0016421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Qiu, J.; Guan, J.; Yang, X.; Wu, J.; Liu, G.; Di, G.; Chen, C.; Hou, Y.; Han, Q.; Shen, Z.; et al. Quality of Life and Psychological State in Chinese Breast Cancer Patients Who Received BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Gitsels-van der Wal, J.T.; Mannien, J.; Ghaly, M.M.; Verhoeven, P.S.; Hutton, E.K.; Reinders, H.S. The role of religion in decision-making on antenatal screening of congenital anomalies: A qualitative study amongst Muslim Turkish origin immigrants. Midwifery 2014, 30, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Dunk, R.; Madge, S. SARS-CoV-2 driving rapid change in adult cystic fibrosis services: The role of the clinical nurse specialist. BMJ Open Qual. 2021, 10, e001427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Saleh, M.; Kerr, R.; Dunlop, K. Scoping the Scene: What Do Nurses, Midwives, and Allied Health Professionals Need and Want to Know About Genomics? Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Wilkinson, B.; George, E.; Horton, S.; Bellaby, J.; Min, S.S.; Gama, R. A service evaluation: Impact of nurse-led regional familial hypercholesterolaemia service on a hospital adult lipid clinic. Br. J. Nurs. 2020, 29, 1206–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Kirk, M.; Tonkin, E.; Skirton, H.; McDonald, K.; Cope, B.; Morgan, R. Storytellers as partners in developing a genetics education resource for health professionals. Nurse Educ. Today 2013, 33, 518–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Oulton, K.; Gibson, F.; Williams, A.; Geoghegan, S.; Aldiss, S.; Wray, J. Supporting families of children with an undiagnosed genetic condition: Using co-design to ensure the right person is in the right post doing the right job. Child Care Health Dev. 2021, 47, 300–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. van der Giessen, J.A.M.; Ausems, M.; van den Muijsenbergh, M.; van Dulmen, S.; Fransen, M.P. Systematic development of a training program for healthcare professionals to improve communication about breast cancer genetic counseling with low health literate patients. Fam. Cancer 2020, 19, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Fallowfield, L.; Solis-Trapala, I.; Starkings, R.; May, S.; Matthews, L.; Eccles, D.; Evans, D.G.; Turnbull, C.; Crawford, G.; Jenkins, V. Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): Development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing. Br. J. Cancer 2022, 127, 1116–1122. [Google Scholar]
  207. Shepherd, M.; Colclough, K.; Ellard, S.; Hattersley, A.T. Ten years of the national genetic diabetes nurse network: A model for the translation of genetic information into clinical care. Clin. Med. 2014, 14, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Platten, U.; Rantala, J.; Lindblom, A.; Brandberg, Y.; Lindgren, G.; Arver, B. The use of telephone in genetic counseling versus in-person counseling: A randomized study on counselees’ outcome. Fam. Cancer 2012, 11, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Andrews, V.; Tonkin, E.; Lancastle, D.; Kirk, M. Using the Diffusion of Innovations theory to understand the uptake of genetics in nursing practice: Identifying the characteristics of genetic nurse adopters. J. Adv. Nurs. 2014, 70, 878–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Williams, G.M.; Neville, P.; Gillespie, K.M.; Leary, S.D.; Hamilton-Shield, J.P.; Searle, A.J. What factors influence recruitment to a birth cohort of infants with Down’s syndrome? Arch. Dis. Child 2018, 103, 763–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Hickey, M.; Rio, I.; Trainer, A.; Marino, J.L.; Wrede, C.D.; Peate, M. What information do healthcare professionals need to inform premenopausal women about risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy? Menopause 2020, 27, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Young, A.L.; Butow, P.N.; Tucker, K.M.; Wakefield, C.E.; Healey, E.; Williams, R. When to break the news and whose responsibility is it? A cross-sectional qualitative study of health professionals’ views regarding disclosure of BRCA genetic cancer risk. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e033127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Dodd, S.; Clarke, M.; Becker, L.; Mavergames, C.; Fish, R.; Williamson, P.R. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2018, 96, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Haidar, H.; Vanstone, M.; Laberge, A.M.; Bibeau, G.; Ghulmiyyah, L.; Ravitsky, V. Implementation challenges for an ethical introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing: A qualitative study of healthcare professionals’ views from Lebanon and Quebec. BMC Med. Ethics 2020, 21, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Quinonez, S.C.; O’Connor, B.C.; Jacobs, M.F.; Mekonnen Tekleab, A.; Marye, A.; Bekele, D.; Yashar, B.M.; Hanson, E.; Yeshidinber, A.; Wedaje, G. The introduction of genetic counseling in Ethiopia: Results of a training workshop and lessons learned. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0255278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Asafa, K.; Ndikom, C.; Adelanwa, A. Midwives’ Knowledge and Readiness to Practice Antenatal Screening and Genetic Testing in selected Hospitals in Lagos, Nigeria. J. Midwifery Reprod. Health 2021, 9, 3007–3016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Kudzi, W.; Addy, B.S.; Dzudzor, B. Knowledge of Pharmacogenetics among Healthcare Professionals and Faculty Members of Health Training Institutions in Ghana. Ghana Med. J. 2015, 49, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Jackson, L.; O’Connor, A.; Paneque, M.; Curtisova, V.; Lunt, P.W.; Pourova, R.K.; Macek, M.; Stefansdottir, V.; Turchetti, D.; Campos, M.; et al. The Gen-Equip Project: Evaluation and impact of genetics e-learning resources for primary care in six European languages. Genet. Med. 2019, 21, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Nembaware, V.; Mulder, N. The African Genomic Medicine Training Initiative (AGMT): Showcasing a Community and Framework Driven Genomic Medicine Training for Nurses in Africa. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Hickey, K.T.; Taylor, J.Y.; Barr, T.L.; Hauser, N.R.; Jia, H.; Riga, T.C.; Katapodi, M. Nursing genetics and genomics: The International Society of Nurses in Genetics (ISONG) survey. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 63, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Seven, M.; Pasalak, S.I.; Guvenc, G.; Kok, G. Knowledge Level and Educational Needs of Turkish Oncology Nurses Regarding the Genetics of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2017, 48, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Seven, M.; Akyüz, A.; Elbüken, B.; Skirton, H.; Öztürk, H. Nurses’ knowledge and educational needs regarding genetics. Nurse Educ. Today 2015, 35, 444–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Lopes-Júnior, L.C.; Carvalho Júnior, P.M.; de Faria Ferraz, V.E.; Nascimento, L.C.; Van Riper, M.; Flória-Santos, M. Genetic education, knowledge and experiences between nurses and physicians in primary care in Brazil: A cross-sectional study. Nurs. Health Sci. 2017, 19, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Seven, M.; Eroglu, K.; Akyüz, A.; Ingvoldstad, C. Educational needs of nurses to provide genetic services in prenatal care: A cross-sectional study from Turkey. Nurs. Health Sci. 2017, 19, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Cofie, R.; Sarfo, J.O.; Doe, P. Teaching and Learning of Genetics Using Concept Maps: An Experimental Study Among Midwifery Students in Ghana. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 2021, 10, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Burcher, S.; Meiser, B.; Mitchell, G.; Saunders, C.; Rahman, B.; Tucker, K.; Barlow-Stewart, K.; Watts, K.; Gleeson, M.; Kirk, J. Oncology health professionals’ attitudes toward treatment-focused genetic testing for women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Per. Med. 2013, 10, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  227. Prolla, C.M.; da Silva, P.S.; Netto, C.B.; Goldim, J.R.; Ashton-Prolla, P. Knowledge about breast cancer and hereditary breast cancer among nurses in a public hospital. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2015, 23, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Nunes, M.R.; Canabarro, S.T.; Vanz, A.P.; Rosa, R.F.M.; Zen, P.R.G. Nursing diagnoses in Turner syndrome. Mundo Saude 2021, 45, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Yacoub, M.I.; Zaiton, H.I.; Abdelghani, F.A.; Elshatarat, R.A. Effectiveness of an Educational Program on Nurses’ Knowledge and Practice in the Management of Acute Painful Crises in Sickle Cell Disease. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 2019, 50, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  230. Melo, D.G.; de Paula, P.K.; de Araujo Rodrigues, S.; da Silva de Avó, L.R.; Germano, C.M.; Demarzo, M.M. Genetics in primary health care and the National Policy on Comprehensive Care for People with Rare Diseases in Brazil: Opportunities and challenges for professional education. J. Community Genet. 2015, 6, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  231. Ngim, C.F.; Lai, N.M.; Ibrahim, H. Counseling for prenatal diagnosis and termination of pregnancy due to thalassemia major: A survey of health care workers’ practices in Malaysia. Prenat. Diagn. 2013, 33, 1226–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Chudleigh, J.; Ren, C.L.; Barben, J.; Southern, K. International approaches for delivery of positive newborn bloodspot screening results for cystic fibrosis. J. Cyst. Fibros. 2018, 17, S18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Aboagye, S.; Torto, M.; Asah-Opoku, K.; Nuamah, M.A.; Oppong, S.A.; Samba, A. Sickle Cell Education: A Survey of Antenatal Healthcare Givers. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2019, 101, 684–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Plavskin, A.; Samuels, W.E.; Calzone, K.A. Construct Validity Analysis of the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey: Overcoming Challenges in Variable Response Instruments. J. Nurs. Meas. 2023, 31, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Tonkin, E.; Calzone, K.A.; Badzek, L.; Benjamin, C.; Middleton, A.; Patch, C.; Kirk, M. A Maturity Matrix for Nurse Leaders to Facilitate and Benchmark Progress in Genomic Healthcare Policy, Infrastructure, Education, and Delivery. J. Nurs. Sch. 2020, 52, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Read, C.Y.; Ward, L.D. Misconceptions About Genomics Among Nursing Faculty and Students. Nurse Educ. 2018, 43, 196–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Dwyer, A.A.; Calzone, K.A.; Dewell, S.; Badzek, L.; Patch, C. Correspondence on “Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: Reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics)” by Nisselle et al. Genet. Med. 2022, 24, 962–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Nisselle, A.; Janinski, M.; Martyn, M.; McClaren, B.; Kaunein, N.; Barlow-Stewart, K.; Belcher, A.; Bernat, J.A.; Best, S.; Bishop, M.; et al. Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: Reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics). Genet. Med. 2021, 23, 1356–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  239. Kirk, M.; Tonkin, E.; Skirton, H. An iterative consensus-building approach to revising a genetics/genomics competency framework for nurse education in the UK. J. Adv. Nurs. 2014, 70, 405–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  240. Skirton, H.; Lewis, C.; Kent, A.; Coviello, D.A. Genetic education and the challenge of genomic medicine: Development of core competences to support preparation of health professionals in Europe. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2010, 18, 972–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  241. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Understanding Disparities in Access to Genomic Medicine: Proceedings of a Workshop; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Genes 14 02013 g001
Figure 1. Scoping review PRISMA diagram.
Figure 1. Scoping review PRISMA diagram.
Genes 14 02013 g001
Genes 14 02013 g002
Figure 2. Genomic nursing publications by year (2012–2022: n = 126). A total of 126 articles were identified relating to healthcare-provider-related clinical and educational outcomes (2012–2022). On average, 11 ± 3 articles (median: 12) were published each year, exhibiting a nearly linear pattern of growth in cumulative publications on nursing and genomics.
Figure 2. Genomic nursing publications by year (2012–2022: n = 126). A total of 126 articles were identified relating to healthcare-provider-related clinical and educational outcomes (2012–2022). On average, 11 ± 3 articles (median: 12) were published each year, exhibiting a nearly linear pattern of growth in cumulative publications on nursing and genomics.
Genes 14 02013 g002
Genes 14 02013 g003
Figure 3. Publications by setting and topical area (2012–2022: n = 126). Top panel (A) depicts the number of publications by domain/setting. “Other” includes a mobile pharmacogenomics app, results from a workshop, a Delphi study, and an educational framework. Bottom panel (B) depicts specific topic areas of publications. Overall, 22.3% of articles focused on educating either pre-licensure registered nursing (RN) students, advanced practice registered nursing (APRN) students, nursing faculty, or providing continuing education for practicing nurses. “Other” includes articles on storytelling, instrument development/validation, and culturally appropriate pedigree nomenclature.
Figure 3. Publications by setting and topical area (2012–2022: n = 126). Top panel (A) depicts the number of publications by domain/setting. “Other” includes a mobile pharmacogenomics app, results from a workshop, a Delphi study, and an educational framework. Bottom panel (B) depicts specific topic areas of publications. Overall, 22.3% of articles focused on educating either pre-licensure registered nursing (RN) students, advanced practice registered nursing (APRN) students, nursing faculty, or providing continuing education for practicing nurses. “Other” includes articles on storytelling, instrument development/validation, and culturally appropriate pedigree nomenclature.
Genes 14 02013 g003
Genes 14 02013 g004
Figure 4. Interventional studies by area of genomics in nursing (2012–2022). Forty two interventional studies were identified across five key areas of genomics in nursing. The majority of articles (30/42, 71%) related to educational interventions across the five key areas (black bars). GC: genetic counseling; PGx: pharmacogenomics.
Figure 4. Interventional studies by area of genomics in nursing (2012–2022). Forty two interventional studies were identified across five key areas of genomics in nursing. The majority of articles (30/42, 71%) related to educational interventions across the five key areas (black bars). GC: genetic counseling; PGx: pharmacogenomics.
Genes 14 02013 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Thomas, J.; Keels, J.; Calzone, K.A.; Badzek, L.; Dewell, S.; Patch, C.; Tonkin, E.T.; Dwyer, A.A. Current State of Genomics in Nursing: A Scoping Review of Healthcare Provider Oriented (Clinical and Educational) Outcomes (2012–2022). Genes 2023, 14, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14112013

AMA Style

Thomas J, Keels J, Calzone KA, Badzek L, Dewell S, Patch C, Tonkin ET, Dwyer AA. Current State of Genomics in Nursing: A Scoping Review of Healthcare Provider Oriented (Clinical and Educational) Outcomes (2012–2022). Genes. 2023; 14(11):2013. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14112013

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thomas, Joanne, Jordan Keels, Kathleen A. Calzone, Laurie Badzek, Sarah Dewell, Christine Patch, Emma T. Tonkin, and Andrew A. Dwyer. 2023. "Current State of Genomics in Nursing: A Scoping Review of Healthcare Provider Oriented (Clinical and Educational) Outcomes (2012–2022)" Genes 14, no. 11: 2013. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14112013

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop