Back

Comparing Cardiac Genetic Testing Pathways: Impacts on Access, Informed Choice, and Decisional Satisfaction

Christian, S.; Belcher, T. C.; Benoit, M.; Chan, A.; Dzwiniel, T.; Ilhan, E.; Jain, S.; Katchmer, K.; Kiamanesh, O.; Lilley, M.; Marcadier, J.; Moreau, S.; Muranyi, A.; Nicolas, A.; Sharma, P.; Zhao, X.; Huculak, C.

2026-04-05 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.04.03.26350137 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Mainstreaming genetic testing has emerged as a strategy to improve access and reduce wait times for patients who may benefit from genetic testing. Ensuring patients fully grasp the implications of testing when formal genetic counselling is not provided, remains a focus for ongoing research. Methods: Patients diagnosed with hypertrophic or dilated cardiomyopathy were offered genetic testing between September 2024 and September 2025 through either the mainstreaming model conducted in cardiology clinics or a referral to Medical Genetics where patients attended an online webinar or a one-on-one genetic counselling appointment. Uptake of testing, time to testing, informed choice and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among patients offered genetic testing, uptake was higher in the mainstreaming pathway (82%) compared with a referral to Medical Genetics (69%). The difference in access was predominately due to patients not following through with their Genetics referral. Mainstreaming reduced wait times where patients referred to Genetics waited a median of 94-185 additional days to be offered genetic testing. Despite improved access, only 62% of mainstreamed patients were considered informed, compared to 91% of patients that attended a patient webinar through Medical Genetics (p < 0.01). Satisfaction with decision-making was high across both pathways. Conclusion: Integrating genetic testing into cardiology practices increased access and reduced wait times; however, patients demonstrated significantly lower rates of informed decision making compared to those who attended a patient webinar offered through Medical Genetics. These findings highlight the importance of structured education to support informed decision making within mainstreaming pathways.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.7%
2
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.2%
4
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.4%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.2%
7
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 50%
2.1%
10
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
11
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
15
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
16
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
17
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
18
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
19
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
22
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
23
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
24
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
25
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%