Defining the Global Landscape of Kidney Genetics Care-A Scoping Review and International Stakeholder Consultation of Clinic Models and Outcomes

IntroductionGenomic testing is reshaping nephrology practice, yet the structure, outcomes, and implementation of kidney genetics services remain poorly characterized. MethodsWe conducted a two-part scoping study comprising (i) a literature review (JBI methodology, PRISMA-ScR compliant; OSF registration doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N32VA) of English-language publications (2000-2025) describing kidney genetics services and outcomes, and (ii) an international stakeholder consultation of clinic leads to capture real-world service and implementation experiences. ResultsSixty studies were included, predominantly from North America (n=23), followed by United Kingdom/Ireland (n=5), Europe (n=17), Australia/New Zealand (n=10), and Asia (n=5). Among the 25 studies describing clinic models, four types were identified: multidisciplinary integrated (n=12), nephrologist-led (n=9), mainstreaming (n=2), and traditional genetics referral (n=2). Clinic structure varied by region. Outcome reporting focused on diagnostic yield (92%), with limited data on timeliness (16%), patient-reported outcomes (12%), or implementation outcomes (4%). Test penetration was high across regions and models, while diagnostic yield varied. Nephrologist-led clinics demonstrated comparable performance to multidisciplinary models when adequately supported. International stakeholder consultation data (n=48) revealed diversification of clinic models across regions. In Australia/New Zealand, multidisciplinary clinics predominated, supported by public funding and in-house or hybrid laboratory. United Kingdom/Ireland clinics used public funding and a national laboratory. North American clinics show greater heterogeneity, with higher prevalence of nephrologist-led models, reliance on commercial laboratories, and mixed or private funding. Asian clinics reported nephrologist-led models, with resource constraints, and hybrid testing and funding arrangements. Comprehensive sequencing with virtual panels predominated in Australia/New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Europe; phenotype-driven panels {+/-} reflex testing were more common in North America. ConclusionsKidney genetics care is expanding but remains unevenly implemented. Nephrologist-led and multidisciplinary models can be effective with appropriate support. Patient selection may influence diagnostic yield more than testing modality. Standardized outcome reporting and theory-driven implementation evaluation are essential for delivering equitable, sustainable genomic services. Lay SummaryThis study examined how kidney genetics services are delivered across the globe. We reviewed 60 studies (2000-2025) and consulted 48 clinic leaders globally. Four service models were identified--multidisciplinary integrated, nephrologist-led, mainstreaming, and traditional genetics referral--and mapped variation in care teams, test strategies, test laboratories, and funding. Most studies reported diagnostic yield, but few assessed patient experience or how well services were implemented. European programs showed the highest performance, attributed to clear referral criteria, deep phenotyping, detailed family histories, multidisciplinary review, and strong public funding. Clinics led by nephrologists performed comparably to multidisciplinary teams when adequately supported. Across all settings, patient selection was more important than the specific type of genetic test used in determining diagnostic success. Kidney genetics services are expanding but remain uneven. This study highlights the need for context-specific, theory-informed, and determinants-targeted strategies to support scalable, equitable, and sustainable genomic care worldwide.