Strengthening implementation of genetic risk assessment and germline testing services for breast cancer patients in Thailand: a CFIR-guided multisite implementation study
This CFIR-guided multisite study in Thailand reveals that while national policy enabled genetic testing for breast cancer, successful implementation and sustained access depend on organizational capacity to manage workflows, counseling, and result disclosure, highlighting the need for expanded coverage beyond BRCA1/2 to include multigene panels and preventive care for at-risk relatives.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Breast cancer is a disease that affects millions of women worldwide, but for some families, the risk is written into their DNA. In these cases, a specific error in a gene can be passed down from parent to child, making the development of cancer much more likely. Scientists have long known that finding these errors, called genetic mutations, can change how doctors treat a patient. If a woman carries a specific mutation, she might respond better to certain drugs or benefit from surgery to remove tissue before cancer ever starts. Furthermore, knowing a family member has this mutation allows doctors to check other relatives, potentially catching the disease early or preventing it entirely. For years, the challenge in many places was simply the cost of finding these errors. However, in Thailand, the government recently stepped in to pay for these tests, turning a luxury into a public service. The big question that remained was not whether the tests were valuable, but whether hospitals could actually get them done for the people who needed them.
A team of researchers set out to answer this question by looking inside four different hospitals across Thailand. They wanted to see how the new government policy worked in the real world, moving from a piece of paper in a ministry office to a patient sitting in a doctor's office. The researchers interviewed doctors, nurses, and administrators, and they reviewed the records of thousands of patients who were screened for genetic risk between early 2024 and the end of 2025. They found that while the government had successfully removed the financial barrier, the path to getting a test was still full of bumps. The success of the program depended less on the policy itself and more on how each hospital organized its own staff and paperwork.
The study revealed that having a government promise to pay for a test is not the same as having a system to deliver it. In some hospitals, the process was smooth because nurses had a simple checklist to identify which patients should be tested. In others, the system relied on individual doctors to remember the rules, which meant many eligible patients were missed. The researchers found that when a hospital had a clear plan and a designated person to guide the patient through the process, more people got tested. When the process was left to chance or depended on a single busy specialist, the system stalled. This was true even though the money was available. The government had opened the door, but the hospitals had to build the hallway to get people through it.
The data showed that the new system was working for many, but not all. Out of nearly 2,500 patients who were checked for risk, about 2,190 actually received the genetic test. This is a high number, but it also showed that nearly 300 people who were screened never got the test, often because they fell through the cracks of the hospital's workflow. Among those who were tested, the results were significant. About 12 percent of the patients had a harmful genetic mutation that explained their cancer risk. Perhaps most importantly, the study showed that looking only at the two most famous genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, was not enough. While these two genes were responsible for about 60 percent of the findings, the other 40 percent of harmful mutations were found in different genes. This means that hospitals need to be ready to test for a wider range of genes and to help patients understand what those results mean.
Another major finding was that the current rules for who gets free testing were too narrow. The government policy currently covers testing only if a patient has already been diagnosed with breast cancer. However, the researchers found that this rule misses people who have ovarian cancer or family members who carry the same genetic risk but have not yet developed cancer. Because the policy is tied strictly to a breast cancer diagnosis, these other high-risk groups are left out, even though they belong to the same family of genetic risk. Additionally, the technology for testing has moved faster than the policy. Laboratories are now testing for dozens of genes at once, but the government insurance only fully covers the cost for the two main genes. This leaves hospitals and patients in a difficult position where they can find a mutation in a different gene, but the insurance might not cover the follow-up care or surgery needed to manage that specific risk.
The researchers concluded that the future of genetic care in Thailand depends on fixing the organization of the work, not just the funding. They suggested that hospitals need to create clear, step-by-step guides for their staff, train nurses to take the lead in identifying at-risk patients, and build systems to track family members who might also need testing. Without these practical steps, the promise of the new policy will remain just that—a promise. The study showed that when hospitals organized their teams well, they could reach more patients and use the test results to change treatment plans. When they did not, the system failed, regardless of how much money was available. The path forward requires hospitals to build the infrastructure that turns a government check into a life-saving test for every eligible patient and their family.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.