4.6 Review

The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 1437-1449

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-020-0825-2

关键词

workforce; clinical genetics; genetic counselor; clinical geneticist; human resources

资金

  1. Large Scale Applied Research Project (LSARP) Genome Canada competition
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  3. Genome BC
  4. Genome Quebec
  5. BC Provincial Health Services Authority
  6. BC Children's Hospital Foundation
  7. BC Women's Hospital Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As genetics becomes increasingly integrated into all areas of health care and the use of complex genetic tests continues to grow, the clinical genetics workforce will likely face greatly increased demand for its services. To inform strategic planning by health-care systems to prepare to meet this future demand, we performed a scoping review of the genetics workforce in high-income countries, summarizing all available evidence on its composition and capacity published between 2010 and 2019. Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PAIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and gray literature sources were searched, resulting in 162 unique studies being included in the review. The evidence presented includes the composition and size of the workforce, the scope of practice for genetics and nongenetics specialists, the time required to perform genetics-related tasks, case loads of genetics providers, and opportunities to increase efficiency and capacity. Our results indicate that there is currently a shortage of genetics providers and that there is a lack of consensus about the appropriate boundaries between the scopes of practice for genetics and nongenetics providers. Moreover, the results point to strategies that may be used to increase productivity and efficiency, including alternative service delivery models, streamlining processes, and the automation of tasks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据