This project will establish a nationally consistent and ethically defensible approach to embed genomic testing in Australian primary care. Many non-genetic health professionals (eg, general practitioners (GPs) and other specialists) have limited experience with such testing. Current tests—both subsidised and consumer-paid—target a range of genes and conditions, making appropriate selection challenging. A structured implementation approach is therefore crucial. We will develop, test, refine and evaluate internationally relevant tools to support GPs and consumers in using genomics effectively.

Aims of the project are to (1) develop, implement and evaluate key supports for GPs offering tests through three interventions: primary health point-of-care resources, a practical guide to dealing with ethical issues affecting clinicians and established recommendations for a national approach for genetic counsellors to support GPs providing genetic testing; (2) develop and evaluate consumer resources and plan the implementation strategies; (3) evaluate real-world utilisation and equity of access to genetic testing in primary care using linked Medicare and population data.

This project will focus on two genomic applications recently made available in Australia on the universal insurance scheme (Medicare): a reproductive genetic carrier screen (an example of the role of genetics in reproductive testing) and genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia (an example of a condition-specific test). Both tests can be complex for GPs to understand and explain to consumers and have potential implications beyond the purpose of the test (eg, personal health implications for carriers and results are also relevant to genetic relatives). Developing a robust clinical pathway and process for these tests will prepare GPs for future more complex applications of clinical genomics. The study will take place from January 2024 to December 2026.

Ethical approval for this work has been received from the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 520241849560183) and the Royal Children’s Hospital Research Ethics and Governance (HREC/112451). Findings will be disseminated via publications, conferences and engagement with primary care networks and policymakers.

To compare use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) with nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) on risk of cigarette smoking relapse by people who had already quit cigarettes.

Prospective cohort study.

The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study-3, a nationwide US cohort with follow-up every 3 years beginning in 2015.

Adults who in 2015 had already quit smoking (n=3112) or were smoking (n=1018) and who in 2018 reported past or current exclusive use of ENDS or NRT and provided smoking status.

Relapse to cigarette smoking in 2018 among people who were already quit in 2015, and abstinence from cigarettes in 2018 among people who were smoking in 2015.

Among respondents who had already quit in 2015, the unadjusted risk of relapse in 2018 was approximately three times greater for those who reported past exclusive ENDS versus past exclusive NRT use (11.2% vs 3.9%; relative risk (RR)=2.90, 95% CI 2.12 to 3.98). This association remained significant in a multivariable-adjusted model (RR=2.09, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.92). Among those smoking in 2015, the unadjusted likelihood of abstinence in 2018 was higher for those who reported current ENDS versus NRT use (RR=1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.80), but the multivariable model adjusted for smoking frequency indicated no difference in abstinence (RR=1.38; 95% CI 0.93 to 2.05).

ENDS use was associated with greater relapse risk than NRT among people who had already quit. Although ENDS may support shorter-term cessation, further long-term observational research is needed to clarify relapse risks associated with ENDS relative to NRT.