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

Abstract

BackgroundMainstreaming 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. MethodsPatients 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. ResultsAmong 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. ConclusionIntegrating 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.