Educational priorities and current involvement in genetic practice: a survey of midwives in the Netherlands, UK and Sweden

Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Genetic Counselors and Genetic Testing Among Certified Professional Midwives in Vermont: A Modified Grounded Theory Study

Increasingly, pregnant people in the United States are choosing to give at birth at home, and certified professional midwives (CPMs) often attend these births. Care by midwives, including home birth midwives, has the potential to decrease unnecessary medical interventions and their associated health care costs, as well as to improve maternal satisfaction with care. However, lack of integration into the health care system affects the ability of CPMs to access standard medications and testing for their clients, including prenatal screening. Genetics and genomics are now a routine part of prenatal screening, and genetic testing can contribute to identifying candidates for planned home birth. However, research on genetics and midwifery care has not, to date, included the subset of midwives who attend the majority of planned home births, CPMs. The purpose of this study was to examine CPMs' access to, and perspectives on, one aspect of prenatal care, genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. Using semi-structured interviews and a modified grounded theory approach to narrative analysis, we identified three key themes: (1) systems-level issues with accessing information about genetic counseling and genetic testing; (2) practice-level patterns in information delivery and self-awareness about knowledge limitations; and (3) client-level concerns about the value of genetic testing relative to difficulties with access and stress caused by the information. The results of this study can be used to develop decision aids that include information about genetic testing and genetic counseling access for pregnant people intending home births in the United States.

Pregnant women's informational needs prior to decisions about prenatal diagnosis for chromosomal anomalies-A Q methodological study

OBJECTIVE

To study pregnant women's subjective viewpoints on what is important when receiving information prior to decision-making regarding prenatal testing for chromosomal anomalies.

METHOD

Data were collected using Q methodology. During January 2020-October 2021, 45 pregnant women in Sweden completed a 50-item Q sort. Statements regarding what is important when receiving information about prenatal screening and diagnosis were prioritized through ranking in a fixed sorting grid on an 11-point scale, from "most important" to "least important." Socio-demographics and coping styles were surveyed through questionnaires.

RESULTS

Three groups represented different viewpoints on what pregnant women consider important when receiving information about prenatal screening and diagnosis. Factor 1: Stepwise information and decision-making: viewing information and decision-making as a step-by-step process. Factor 2: Decision-making as a continuous process based on couple autonomy: Striving for an informed decision as a couple about tests, test results and conditions screened. Factor 3: As much information as early as possible-the importance of personal autonomy in decision-making: Prioritizing autonomous decision-making based on non-directive information early in the pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the complexities involved when providing information. As shown by the differing viewpoints in this study, pregnant women's informational needs differ, making individual and personalized information preferable.

Certified Nurse-Midwives' Experiences With Provision of Prenatal Genetic Screening: A Case for Interprofessional Collaboration

Prenatal genetic screening (GS) for the most common autosomal aneuploidies encompasses maternal serum screening (MSS) and noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT, or cell-free fetal DNA testing). In the United States, most maternity care is provided by obstetrician-gynecologists; however, women are increasingly utilizing the services of certified nurse-midwives (CNMs). Currently, limited research exists on midwives' experiences with providing prenatal GS. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore CNMs' experiences in providing prenatal GS. A semistructured guide focused on MSS and NIPT was used to interview a convenience sample of 13 CNMs. Results were coded and analyzed using grounded theory to elicit overarching themes. Results were organized into 6 themes describing CNMs' prenatal GS provision: (1) clinical protocols; (2) patient education; (3) patient-CNM shared decision-making process; (4) testing initiation; (5) results delivery; and (6) follow-up coordination. Key influences on midwives' perspectives on offering prenatal GS included a noninterventionist approach to pregnancy and past experiences with false-positive MSS results. Participants had an understanding of prenatal GS that was appropriate to midwifery scope of practice. Results indicate that NIPT utilization is compatible with the midwifery philosophy of noninterventionism, although midwives had limited experiences with NIPT to date.

Cancer risk communication, predictive testing and management in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK: general practitioners' and breast surgeons' current practice and preferred practice responsibilities

Genetic testing has its greatest public health value when it identifies individuals who will benefit from specific interventions based upon their risk. This paradigm is the basis for the use of predictive tests, such as BRCA1/BRCA2 testing which has become part of clinical practice for more than a decade. Currently predictive BRCA1/BRCA2 testing is offered to women using low, moderate and high risk based upon family history as cut-off levels. Non-genetic health professionals such as general practitioners (GPs) and breast surgeons (BS) are seen as gatekeepers to manage demand and/or facilitate access to appropriate services for high-risk patients. Data about current practices are lacking. The paper presents data on the current practice of GPs' and BS' cancer risk assessment, referral practices and preferred practice responsibilities for women at risk for familial breast cancer in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK derived by a self-administered questionnaire send to a representative sample of GPs and BS in the four countries. One thousand one hundred ninety-seven GPs and 1,223 BS completed the questionnaire. Both GPs and BS reported that they are consulted by a considerable number of patients presenting with concerns about a family history of cancer. Both commonalities and striking differences could be observed between GPs and BS from the four participating countries. GPs from France and Germany reported significantly higher proportions taking a family history of cancer including the extended family than GPs from the Netherlands and the UK. Most GPs from France, Germany and the Netherlands stated their willingness for providing risk assessment for an unaffected (high-risk) woman with a family history of breast cancer and the vast majority of BS from all four countries reported that they themselves would provide risk assessment for an unaffected (high-risk) woman with a family history of breast cancer. However, a substantial number of both GPs and BS would not have taken an appropriate family history for their patient failing to take into account the paternal side of the family. GPs from Germany reported a significantly lower readiness to refer a patient with a family history of a BRCA1 mutation for specialist genetic counselling when compared to the GPs from the other countries. GPs and BS from France, Germany and the Netherlands significantly less often assigned practice responsibilities to a genetic specialist as compared to the participating GPs and BS from the UK. The outcome of the study confirms the need for capability building in genetics for non-genetic health professionals. Using genetic risk assessment tools without a full understanding could result in missed opportunities for cancer prevention and harm patients. In order to provide best possible services for high-risk patients presenting with cancer concerns, close collaboration with clinical geneticists should become routine part of mainstream medical practice.

The application of genetics and nutritional genomics in practice: an international survey of knowledge, involvement and confidence among dietitians in the US, Australia and the UK

As a result of expanding scientific understanding of the interplay between genetics and dietary risk factors, those involved in nutritional management need to understand genetics and nutritional genomics in order to inform management of individuals and groups. The aim of this study was to measure and determine factors affecting dietitians' knowledge, involvement and confidence in genetics and nutritional genomics across the US, Australia and the UK. A cross-sectional study was undertaken using an online questionnaire that measured knowledge and current involvement and confidence in genetics and nutritional genomics. The questionnaire was distributed to dietitians in the US, Australia and the UK using email lists from the relevant professional associations. Data were collected from 1,844 dietitians who had practiced in the previous 6 months. The main outcomes were knowledge of genetics and nutritional genomics and involvement and confidence in undertaking clinical and educational activities related to genetics and nutritional genomics. Mean scores for knowledge, involvement and confidence were calculated. Analysis of variance and χ (2) analysis were used to compare scores and frequencies. Multivariate linear regression was used to determine predictors of high scores. The results demonstrated significant differences in involvement (p < 0.001) and confidence (p < 0.001) but not knowledge scores (p = 0.119) between countries. Overall, dietitians reported low levels of knowledge (mean knowledge score 56.3 %), involvement (mean number of activities undertaken 20.0-22.7 %) and confidence (mean confidence score 25.8-29.7 %). Significant relationships between confidence, involvement and knowledge were observed. Variables relating to education, experience, sector of employment and attitudes were also significantly associated with knowledge, involvement and confidence. Dietitians' knowledge, involvement and confidence relating to genetics and nutritional genomics remain low and further investigation into factors contributing to this is required.

Genomic medicine: what are the challenges for the National Health Service?

'Personalized medicine' is inextricably linked with current advances in genomics. Although initial claims about the power of genomic tests have been modified, they have the potential to inform a personalized approach to healthcare. Within the health service, genomic testing is being applied in specific situations to inform therapy; however, more robust studies are needed to identify those tests that can make significant improvements to management and prevention of disease. Despite efforts to educate health professionals, genetic literacy remains unsatisfactory and more efforts are needed to embed genetics in pre- and post-registration professional education, and therefore, maximize benefit for patients. Primary care and public health professionals may be contexts in which genomics can be utilized for both personalized healthcare and promotion of community health.

Prioritization of future genetics education for general practitioners: a Delphi study

Purpose:

General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly expected to deliver genetics services in daily patient care. Education in primary care genetics is considered suboptimal and in urgent need of revision and innovation. The aim of this study was to prioritize topics for genetics education for general practice.

Methods:

A Delphi consensus procedure consisting of three rounds was conducted. A purposively selected heterogeneous panel (n = 18) of experts, comprising six practicing GPs who were also engaged in research, five GP trainers, four clinical genetics professionals, and three representatives of patient organizations, participated. Educational needs regarding genetics in general practice in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes were rated and ranked in a top-10 list.

Results:

The entire panel completed all three rounds. Kendall's coefficient of concordance indicated significant agreement regarding the top 10 genetic education needs (P < 0.001). “Recognizing signals that are potentially indicative of a hereditary component of a disease” was rated highest, followed by “Evaluating indications for referral to a clinical genetics centre” and “Knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of genetic tests.”

Conclusions:

The priorities resulting from this study can inform the development of educational modules, including input for case-based education, to improve GP performance in genetic patient care.

Genetic educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: a focus group study with multiple perspectives

BACKGROUND

Available evidence suggests that improvements in genetics education are needed to prepare primary care providers for the impact of ongoing rapid advances in genomics. Postgraduate (physician training) and master (midwifery training) programmes in primary care and public health are failing to meet these perceived educational needs. The aim of this study was to explore the role of genetics in primary care (i.e. family medicine and midwifery care) and the need for education in this area as perceived by primary care providers, patient advocacy groups and clinical genetics professionals.

METHODS

Forty-four participants took part in three types of focus groups: mono-disciplinary groups of general practitioners and midwives, respectively and multidisciplinary groups composed of a diverse set of experts. The focus group sessions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. Recurrent themes were identified.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged regarding the educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: (1) genetics knowledge, (2) family history, (3) ethical dilemmas and psychosocial effects in relation to genetics and (4) insight into the organisation and role of clinical genetics services. These themes reflect a shift in the role of genetics in primary care with implications for education. Although all focus group participants acknowledged the importance of genetics education, general practitioners felt this need more urgently than midwives and more strongly emphasized their perceived knowledge deficiencies.

CONCLUSION

The responsibilities of primary care providers with regard to genetics require further study. The results of this study will help to develop effective genetics education strategies to improve primary care providers' competencies in this area. More research into the educational priorities in genetics is needed to design courses that are suitable for postgraduate and master programmes for general practitioners and midwives.

Confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks-a European survey in five countries-Part 1

Western health care systems are facing today increasing movement of genetic knowledge from research labs into clinical practice. This paper reports the results of a survey that addressed the confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks. The survey was conducted in five countries (France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK). Stratified random samples were drawn from primary care physicians in the five countries representing a sampling frame of 139,579 physicians. Stepwise binary logistic regression procedures were performed to identify the predictor variables for self-reported confidence. Three thousand six hundred eighty-six physicians participated and filled out a self-administered questionnaire. The margin of error for accurate representation of each group of European general practitioners and specialists in the total sample is 2.9% for GP, 2.8% for obstetricians/gynaecologists (OB/GYN) and for paediatricians (PAED) 2.6% (95% confidence level). Confidence in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks is low among participating primary care physicians: 44.2% are not confident, 36.5% somewhat confident, confident or very confident are 19.3%. In each country, those confident/very confident represent less than 33% of the participating physicians. Primary care physicians who report the lowest levels of confidence prove to be those least exposed to medical genetics information and training. Although there are significant differences in the way in which professional education is organised and practice is regulated across European countries, there is a need for a coordinated European effort to improve primary care physicians' background in medical genetics.