Table 2 Participant characteristics

From: Anticipated responses of early adopter genetic specialists and nongenetic specialists to unsolicited genomic secondary findings

Characteristic

N (%)

Characteristic

N (%)

Age (years)

 

CSER investigator

20 (43%)

?20–29

4 (7%)

  

?30–39

18 (33%)

CSER study affiliation a

 

?40–49

10 (19%)

BASIC3

7 (13%)

?50–59

14 (26%)

ClinSeq

6 (11%)

?60–69

7 (13%)

HudsonAlpha

4 (7%)

?70+

1 (2%)

MedSeq

7 (13%)

  

MI-ONCOSEQ

6 (11%)

Gender

 

NCGENES

8 (15%)

?Male

25 (46%)

NEXT Medicine

4 (7%)

?Female

29 (54%)

NextGen

3 (6%)

  

PediSeq

6 (11%)

Race

 

Other

4 (7%)

?White non-Hispanic

43 (80%)

  

?Asian

7 (13%)

Rating of genetics training

 

?Other

4 (7%)

Not at all sufficient

2 (4%)

  

Somewhat insufficient

5 (9%)

  

Neutral

3 (6%)

Specialty a

 

Somewhat sufficient

15 (28%)

?Genetic counseling

21 (39%)

More than sufficient

29 (54%)

?Medical genetics

17 (31%)

  

?Pediatrics

14 (26%)

Tests ordered/disclosed within 12 months

 

?Oncology

11 (20%)

Genetic test

50 (93%)

?Internal medicine

6 (11%)

Genomic sequencing

51 (94%)

?Cardiology

4 (7%)

  

?Otherb

9 (17%)

Practice setting a

 
  

Hospital

41 (76%)

  

Clinic

16 (30%)

  

Other

12 (22%)

  1. aBASIC3, Baylor Advancing Sequencing into Childhood Cancer Care; CSER, Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium; MI-ONCOSEQ, Michigan Oncology Sequencing Center; NCGENES, North Carolina Clinical Genomic Evaluation by NextGen Exome Sequencing.
  2. bParticipants could endorse more than one response option.
  3. cOpen-ended responses included neurology/neurogenetics (4), hematology (2), clinical genetics (1), biochemical genetics (1), and “pediatric, preconception, prenatal and cancer” (1).