Building a learning community of Australian clinical genomics: a social network study of the Australian Genomic Health Alliance.

Complexity science Dissemination Genomics Implementation Learning community Social network analysis Systems change

Journal

BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 02 2019
Historique:
received: 07 10 2018
accepted: 30 01 2019
entrez: 23 2 2019
pubmed: 23 2 2019
medline: 14 11 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Adopting clinical genomics represents a major systems-level intervention requiring diverse expertise and collective learning. The Australian Genomic Health Alliance (Australian Genomics) is strategically linking members and partner organisations to lead the integration of genomic medicine into healthcare across Australia. This study aimed to map and analyse interconnections between members-a key feature of complexity-to capture the collaborations among the genomic community, document learning, assess Australian Genomics' influence and identify key players. An online, whole network study collected relational data from members asking them about two time points: baseline, before Australian Genomics started operation in 2016 and current in 2018. Likert style questions assessed the influence of various sources of knowledge on the respondents' genomic practice. A secure link to the online questionnaire was distributed to all members of Australian Genomics during May 2018. Social network data was analysed and visually constructed using Gephi 0.9.2 software, and Likert questions were analysed using chi-squared computations in SPSS. The project was given ethical approval. Response rate was 57.81% (222/384). The genomic learning community within Australian Genomics was constructed from the responses of participants. There was a growth in ties from pre-2016 (2925 ties) to 2018 (6381 ties) and an increase in density (0.020 to 0.043) suggesting the strong influence of Australian Genomics in creating this community. Respondents nominated 355 collaborative partners from 24 different countries outside of Australia and 328 partners from within Australia but outside the alliance. Key players were the Australian Genomics Manager, two clinical geneticists and four Operational staff members. Most influential sources of learning were hands on learning, shared decision making, journal articles and conference presentations in contrast to formal courses. The successful implementation of clinical genomics requires the engagement of multidisciplinary teams across a range of conditions and expertise. Australian Genomics is shown to be facilitating this collaborative process by strategically building a genomic learning community. We demonstrate the importance of social processes in building complex networks as respondents name "hands on learning" and "making group decisions" the most potent influences of their genomic practice. This has implications for genomic implementation, education and work force strategies.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Adopting clinical genomics represents a major systems-level intervention requiring diverse expertise and collective learning. The Australian Genomic Health Alliance (Australian Genomics) is strategically linking members and partner organisations to lead the integration of genomic medicine into healthcare across Australia. This study aimed to map and analyse interconnections between members-a key feature of complexity-to capture the collaborations among the genomic community, document learning, assess Australian Genomics' influence and identify key players.
METHODS
An online, whole network study collected relational data from members asking them about two time points: baseline, before Australian Genomics started operation in 2016 and current in 2018. Likert style questions assessed the influence of various sources of knowledge on the respondents' genomic practice. A secure link to the online questionnaire was distributed to all members of Australian Genomics during May 2018. Social network data was analysed and visually constructed using Gephi 0.9.2 software, and Likert questions were analysed using chi-squared computations in SPSS. The project was given ethical approval.
RESULTS
Response rate was 57.81% (222/384). The genomic learning community within Australian Genomics was constructed from the responses of participants. There was a growth in ties from pre-2016 (2925 ties) to 2018 (6381 ties) and an increase in density (0.020 to 0.043) suggesting the strong influence of Australian Genomics in creating this community. Respondents nominated 355 collaborative partners from 24 different countries outside of Australia and 328 partners from within Australia but outside the alliance. Key players were the Australian Genomics Manager, two clinical geneticists and four Operational staff members. Most influential sources of learning were hands on learning, shared decision making, journal articles and conference presentations in contrast to formal courses.
CONCLUSIONS
The successful implementation of clinical genomics requires the engagement of multidisciplinary teams across a range of conditions and expertise. Australian Genomics is shown to be facilitating this collaborative process by strategically building a genomic learning community. We demonstrate the importance of social processes in building complex networks as respondents name "hands on learning" and "making group decisions" the most potent influences of their genomic practice. This has implications for genomic implementation, education and work force strategies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30791916
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1274-0
pii: 10.1186/s12916-019-1274-0
pmc: PMC6385428
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

44

Références

BMC Med. 2018 Jun 20;16(1):92
pubmed: 29921274
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Mar 21;18(1):192
pubmed: 29562898
BMC Med. 2018 Apr 30;16(1):63
pubmed: 29706132
Science. 2016 Jun 10;352(6291):1278-80
pubmed: 27284183
Implement Sci. 2016 Feb 11;11:19
pubmed: 26864452
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Mar 12;16:87
pubmed: 26968157
Science. 2012 Jul 6;337(6090):49-53
pubmed: 22767921
Health Res Policy Syst. 2014 Aug 26;12:51
pubmed: 25160707
Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 Oct;26(10):1401-1416
pubmed: 29891880
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 May 20;14:225
pubmed: 24885971
Genet Med. 2016 Nov;18(11):1075-1084
pubmed: 27171546
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2017 Jun 29;11:43
pubmed: 28670339
Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Jan 3;104(1):13-20
pubmed: 30609404
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Apr 30;13:158
pubmed: 23631517
J R Soc Med. 2010 Jun;103(6):219-25
pubmed: 20472637
J Biomed Inform. 2014 Dec;52:130-40
pubmed: 24560679
BMC Med. 2018 Jun 20;16(1):95
pubmed: 29921272
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Aug 30;13:338
pubmed: 23987790
BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):625-8
pubmed: 11557716
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 19;370(25):2418-25
pubmed: 24941179
Nature. 2013 Jun 6;498(7452):16-7
pubmed: 23739403
J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 13;10(3):e24
pubmed: 18701421
Hum Mutat. 2014 May;35(5):513-9
pubmed: 24599881

Auteurs

Janet C Long (JC)

Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. janet.long@mq.edu.au.

Chiara Pomare (C)

Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Stephanie Best (S)

Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.

Tiffany Boughtwood (T)

Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.

Kathryn North (K)

Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Australia.

Louise A Ellis (LA)

Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Kate Churruca (K)

Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Jeffrey Braithwaite (J)

Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH