Background: Despite healthcare professionals (HCP) endorsing the clinical utility of pharmacogenomics testing, use in clinical practice is limited.Aims: To assess HCP' perceptions of pharmacogenomic testing and identify barriers to implementation.Methods: HCP involved in prescribing decisions at three hospitals in Sydney, Australia, were invited to participate. The online survey assessed perceptions of pharmacogenomic testing, including: (i) demographic and practice variables; (ii) use, knowledge and confidence; (iii) perceived benefits; (iv) barriers to implementation; and (v) operational and/or system changes and personnel required to implement on site.Results: HCP were predominantly medical practitioners (75/107) and pharmacists (25/107). HCP perceived pharmacogenomic testing was beneficial to identify reasons for drug intolerance (85/95) and risk of side‐effects (86/95). Although testing was considered relevant to their practice (79/100), few HCP (23/100) reported past or intended future use (26/100). Few HCP reported confidence in their ability to identify indications for pharmacogenomic testing (14/107), order tests (19/106) and communicate results with patients (16/107). Lack of clinical practice guidelines (62/79) and knowledge (54/77) were identified as major barriers to implementation of pharmacogenomics. Comprehensive reimbursement for testing and clinical practice guidelines, alongside models‐of‐care involving multidisciplinary teams and local clinical champions were suggested as strategies to facilitate implementation of pharmacogenomic testing into practice.Conclusions: Pharmacogenomic testing was considered important to guide drug selection and dosing decisions. However, limited knowledge, low confidence and an absence of guidelines impede the use of pharmacogenomic testing. Establishment of local resources including multidisciplinary models‐of‐care was suggested to facilitate implementation of pharmacogenomics.

The use of genomic data in research and genomic information in clinical care is increasing as technologies advance and sequencing costs decrease. Using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory as a framework we reviewed recent literature examining publics’ current knowledge of, attitude to, and motivation towards health-related genomics in clinical and research settings. The population of interest was described as ‘publics’ to denote the heterogeneity of ‘the public’. Eligible studies were published in English between 2016–2022. We retrieved 1657 records, with 278 full-text reviewed against the eligibility criteria and concept definitions. In total, 99 articles were included in the review and descriptive numerical summaries were collated. Knowledge literature was categorized using deductive thematic analysis. For attitude and motivation, literature was coded using an analytic framework developed by the authors. There was wide variability in concept definition and measurement across studies. Overall, there was general positivity about genomics, with high awareness but little familiarity or factual knowledge. Publics had high expectations of genomics and perceived that it could provide them with information for their future. Only a few key attitudes were found to be important as motivators or barriers for participation in genomics; these were related to personal and clinical utility of the information. Context was often missing from studies, decreasing the utility of findings for implementation or public engagement. Future research would benefit by using theory-driven approaches to assess relevant publics’ knowledge and attitudes of specific contexts or applications to support genomic implementation and informed decision-making.

Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person’s genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA’s view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.

Providing health services to young people poses specific challenges as a consequence of their unique developmental stage. In the field of genetics, providing developmentally appropriate care can be further complicated by the familial nature of genetic information. Several fields of medicine have developed specific guidance around how best to work with adolescent patients. No such advice exists in the field of clinical genetics or genetic counseling. It is time for the field of genetics to address this aspect of practice through development of a specific adolescent-friendly model of care. Without such a model, the field risks falling behind other medical specialties and adolescents who visit genetic health professionals are at risk of missing out on best possible care.

Advances in genomics offer promise for earlier detection or prevention of cancer, by personalisation of medical care tailored to an individual’s genomic risk status. However genome sequencing can generate an unprecedented volume of results for the patient to process with potential implications for their families and reproductive choices. This paper describes a protocol for a study (PiGeOn) that aims to explore how patients and their blood relatives experience germline genomic sequencing, to help guide the appropriate future implementation of genome sequencing into routine clinical practice. We have designed a mixed-methods, prospective, cohort sub-study of a germline genomic sequencing study that targets adults with cancer suggestive of a genetic aetiology. One thousand probands and 2000 of their blood relatives will undergo germline genomic sequencing as part of the parent study in Sydney, Australia between 2016 and 2020. Test results are expected within12–15 months of recruitment. For the PiGeOn sub-study, participants will be invited to complete surveys at baseline, three months and twelve months after baseline using self-administered questionnaires, to assess the experience of long waits for results (despite being informed that results may not be returned) and expectations of receiving them. Subsets of both probands and blood relatives will be purposively sampled and invited to participate in three semi-structured qualitative interviews (at baseline and each follow-up) to triangulate the data. Ethical themes identified in the data will be used to inform critical revisions of normative ethical concepts or frameworks. This will be one of the first studies internationally to follow the psychosocial impact on probands and their blood relatives who undergo germline genome sequencing, over time. Study results will inform ongoing ethical debates on issues such as informed consent for genomic sequencing, and informing participants and their relatives of specific results. The study will also provide important outcome data concerning the psychological impact of prolonged waiting for germline genomic sequencing. These data are needed to ensure that when germline genomic sequencing is introduced into standard clinical settings, ethical concepts are embedded, and patients and their relatives are adequately prepared and supported during and after the testing process.