Literature Collection

OBJECTIVES: Many patients with major depressive disorder must try multiple antidepressants before they identify a drug that is both effective and tolerable. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing may provide clinicians with guidance around medication choice based on a patient's drug response-related genetic variants. However, this technology is not routinely used in clinical care in Canada, and the views of key actors in the implementation process are largely unknown. The objective of this study was to qualitatively elicit the perspectives and attitudes of clinicians, scientists, policy actors and members of industry about PGx testing to guide antidepressant prescribing in primary care via interviews to help inform implementation policies for this technology. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative description study. Data analysis proceeded in parallel with data collection and consisted of an inductive qualitative content analysis. SETTING: The focus of this study was implementation of PGx testing in primary care in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 28 individuals who had professional experience relevant to the implementation of PGx testing for depression care ('key informants'). Geographical limits for recruitment were applied based on the transferability of key informants' expertise to the Ontario setting; included participants worked in Canada, the USA and Europe. RESULTS: Participants described views about PGx testing relating to benefits and harms of this technology; their interpretation of the evidence base; implementation-oriented considerations and industry involvement. Overall, participants spoke enthusiastically about PGx testing, but emphasised genetic information is only one component of decision-making about medication prescription. Most endorsed implementation in primary care and felt a pre-emptive approach to testing would be ideal. CONCLUSIONS: Key informants consider the use of PGx testing to guide antidepressant prescribing in primary care as having both patient-level and system-level benefits. Concerns raised centred primarily around clinician education and barriers to access. Future research should focus on questions relating to feasibility of system-wide implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Standardized screening, objective evaluation, and management of behavioral health conditions are major challenges in primary care. The Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) provide standardized screening and symptom management tools for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and Mood Disorders (MD), respectively. This study explores family physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the utilization of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ in outpatient primary care offices. METHODS: The study method was a cross-sectional electronic and paper survey utilizing a self-administered questionnaire that assessed primary care physicians' demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practices in rural and urban outpatient clinical settings regarding GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ. Statistical software SAS 9.4 was used for descriptive and Chi-Square statistics. RESULTS: Out of 320 total participants,145 responded (45.3%). Responding family physicians demonstrated a high level of familiarity with the GAD-7 (97.9%), PHQ-9 (97.9%), and MDQ (81.3%) assessment tools. However, the reported utilization rates were relatively lower than knowledge, with 62.7%, 73.1%, and 31.9% extremely likely or likely to utilize the GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ as screening and monitoring tools, respectively. Less than a quarter of the total respondents use the objective score for the future management of GAD, with significantly more residents utilizing the score for GAD-7 compared to attendings (P < .05). There was no statistical significance difference between residents and attendings for the objective evaluation of Major Depressive Disorder (P = .26) and Mood Disorders (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being knowledgeable of the utility of GAD-7, PHQ-9, and MDQ, the primary care physicians in a large integrated health system in Central Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland report inconsistent utilization in their practice. Further studies are needed to determine the underlying factors contributing to the suboptimal usage of these screening tools and ways to increase it.