Clinical genetics and its adjacent regimes

Clinical genetics is the prime application of genetics in healthcare, providing highly advanced and reliable diagnostics for patients with (mostly rare) disease of genetic origin. Whereas many novel technologies have expanded the genetic toolkit, integration or alignment with other areas of healthcare is often challenging. We hypothesise that this is due to the characteristics inherent to the regimes in which the genetic technologies were to be implemented. In order to facilitate integration of genetic applications in a rebooting and perhaps transforming healthcare system, we here provide insights in discrepancies between clinical genetics and four of its adjacent regimes; public health, human genetic research, non-genetic healthcare, and society. We conducted twelve semi-structured group interviews and a focus group to collect information on overlapping and distinctive elements of each regime. We identified three aspects in which the adjacent regimes differed considerably compared to clinical genetics; perception of data, expectations from technologies and compartimentalisation units. Strikingly, divergence within each of these aspects was determined by elements of culture, and not - as is often thought - by elements of structure, e.g. regulation and policy. We conclude that implementation of genetics requires transdisciplinary empathy; understanding of the way of organizing, thinking and doing in adjacent regimes.


Introduction 28 29
For two decades now, genetics has been destined to transform mainstream medicine 1-6 . To a 30 certain extend it has, considering the elaborate genetic toolkit with highly advanced 31 technologies and methodologies such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), genome-wide 32 association studies (GWAS) and Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-33 associated nuclease 9 (CRIPR/Cas9). Still, the expected transformation of genetics into a 34 widely used solution to support prevention, treatment and cure of many diseases has not 35 occurred. Now -in a healthcare system that is gradually rebooting -there is an opportunity 36 to identify and shape the elements that have previously complicated optimal implementation 37 of genetics applications in healthcare. 38 39 A number of suggestions have been made to explain the relative low implementation rate of 40 genetics, e.g. technology outpacing capacity, lack of organizational structure, absence of a 41 collective sense of urgency, and disagreement on responsibilities 7-9 . In essence, healthcare is 42 7 115 116 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

117
Starting from clinical genetics as a distinct regime, we explored four adjacent regimes -119 public health, human genetics research, non-genetic healthcare, and society (Figure 2). 120 Literature and public information provided the key characteristics of each adjacent regime. 121 The group interviews and subsequent focus group provided deeper insight in the structure, 122 culture and practice of each regime, as well as determinants for adoption of genetics 123 applications in adjacent regimes. 124

125
Public health 126 127 Literature shows that public health emerged in the 1920s -simultaneous to modern medicine 128 -predominantly as a result of massive industralisation and urbanization 12 . It is generally 129 defined as "the science and the art of preventing disease, prolonging life and improving 130 quality of life" 19 . Vaccination, environmental safety, and lifestyle interventions are hallmark 131 Sports (VWS), and thus embedded in a structure of national regulation and financing, a 136 culture of prevention, and a practice at the local level (Table 1). 137

138
The most relevant public health service in the context of clinical genetics is (preventive) 139 population screening. This increasingly involves some form of genetic testing, either as part 140 of the first-tier test (e.g. neonatal screening) or as a follow-up (e.g. breast cancer screening) 20 . 141 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. scientific discipline with roots in the nineteenth century (Darwin, Mendel), which has vastly 153 matured since the publication of the human reference genome 3,4,24 . Notwithstanding the 154 emerging wave of applications to edit particular genetic loci (i.e. through CRISPR/Cas), the 155 majority of human genetics research has been on the identification and understanding of 156 disease loci. Following the human reference genome publication, large efforts were 157 undertaken to map human genetic variation, and search for genetic variants underlying 158 disease. In particular the quest for disease loci divided the field; many research groups 159 performed large-scale genome-wide association study (GWAS) on common disease (e.g. 160 cancer or cardiovascular disease), while others performed smaller-scale mutation-detection 161 studies in patients with rare (syndromic) diseases (e.g. intellectual disability or congenital 162 disorders) 25,26 . In total, more than 50.000+ disease loci have been identified through GWASs, 163 but only few have resulted in a change in medical decision making 25,27 . Simultaneously, 164 many rare diseases have been 'solved', but due to their rarity they have only recently started 165 to get recognition as a significant public health issue [28][29][30] . Recently, the sub-communities 166 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. Obviously, society as whole is broader than an individual regime, the actors interacting 188 directly with healthcare could collectively be considered the regime of 'care receivers '. 189 Traditionally, this would comprise patients, but especially in the case of clinical genetics this 190 may also comprise family members, and healthy individuals at-risk (e.g. in the case of breast 191 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Cross-over of genetics in adjacent regimes 204 205
The insights in the structure, culture and practice of the four regimes adjacent to clinical 206 genetics logically led to reflections on the impact of genetic applications on each regime, and 207 on the determinants for application of emerging genetic technologies. Three aspects were 208 frequently addressed as determinants for application: the use of data, the expectations from 209 technology and the level of transdisciplinary empathy. 210 211 "Our data generation levels are unsustainable; we simply will not be able to store all data." 212 The actors within clinical genetics (clinical geneticists, laboratory specialists) were mostly 215 concerned with the mere volume of genetic data. Genetic laboratories follow self-imposed 216 national guidelines to mitigate capacity issues (e.g. delete raw data and intermediate analysis 217 files), but still have an annual spending of €50k-€100k on data storage. The a priori concern 218 is reproducibility; laboratories need to be capable of reproducing the original diagnosis. 219 Conversely, the actors in adjacent regimes put more emphasis on other dimensions of genetic 220 data. More specifically, each regime seemed to consider genetic data challenging, but for a 221 different reason. For instance, the researchers (human genetics research) experienced 222 challenges with respect to data access and use, particularly since the installment of the 223 Europe-wide General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Similarly, clinical geneticists 224 experience the practical implementation of the GDPR as burdensome. It especially causes 225 trouble concerning hereditary data sharing between family members as a consult should be 226 planned for every specific data sharing case. Participants ngMS1 and PHI1 indicated to 227 switch between their roles as respectively healthcare provider and policy maker, and that of a 228 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.20102939 doi: medRxiv preprint embraced the new data regulations as welcome safeguard for their personal data -not a 230 burden. In this context, participant FA1 stressed the importance of standardization, and the 231 efforts required to make data findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable (FAIR). Conversely, actors in primary and secondary care, public health, and society referred to the 253 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. Adjacent regimes are also highly siloed, but the determinants of separation vary considerably 278 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.20102939 doi: medRxiv preprint between regimes. The subspecialisation in clinical genetics originates from the silos in 279 general healthcare, where doctors specialize in particular organ systems (e.g. urologist, 280 cardiologist), patient types (e.g. pediatrician, geriatrician), type of care (e.g. gynaecologists, 281 anesthesiologists), or disease (e.g. oncologist, syndromologist). The emergence of multi-282 disciplinary teams increase permeability of silo walls, but it forces the specialists to gather at 283 the same (virtual) location at the same time, which can be challenging. Still, the clinical 284 geneticists consider the multidisciplinary teams as a sustainable future to withhold patients 285 from 'shopping around' with their own stories. solutions. Fundamental research -as they see it -is meant to understand diseases, symptoms 298 and biological processes. The next step would be to translate, e.g. by predicting response of 299 an individual patient to a particular treatment. While hard criteria for what makes a researcher 300 fundamental or translational do not exist, the key seems to lay in the primary motivation. Of 301 the three scientists we interviewed, one indicated to be primarily curiosity-driven, one 302 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. in the structure of the healthcare regime 12 . This has resulted in a culture of sub-or even 332 hyperspecialisation in clinical genetics. Conversely, the non-medical adjacent regimes are 333 also siloed, but in different directions. Public health is divided in curative and preventive 334 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. This study provides nuances to the observation that clinical genetics lacks organizational 354 structure, absence of agency, and attuning of stakeholders 8,9 . We acknowledge that an 355 overarching organizational structure and alignment is lacking, but this is rather due to the 356 lack of alignment between clinical genetics and its adjacent regimes, than to an absence of 357 structure. Therefore, attuning of stakeholders and creating a shared vision is important 9 . To 358 reach this shared vision, it is essential to first acknowledge that each investigated regime not 359 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.20102939 doi: medRxiv preprint only comprises genetic applications, but entails their own, non-genomic focused, 360 characteristic regime in abundance. We therefore recommend to be sensitive for the 361 differences with adjacent regimes, instead of trying to reshape these regimes, e.g. through 362 change agents 9 . 363 364 To conclude, the genome care regime cuts through the adjacent regimes of care, research, 365 institutions and care receivers. Each regime comprises signature cultural, technological, 366 industrial aspects. Transdisciplinary empathy towards adjacent regimes on those aspects 367 could lead to a more comprehensive regime of genome care. 368 369 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.20102939 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.04.20102939 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 5, 2020.