Family physicians' perspectives on genetics and the human genome project

Bridging the gap in genetics: a progressive model for primary to specialist care

BACKGROUND

The rapid expansion of genetic knowledge, and the implications for healthcare has resulted in an increased role for Primary Care Providers (PCPs) to incorporate genetics into their daily practice. The objective of this study was to explore the self-identified needs, including educational needs, of both urban and rural Primary Care Providers (PCPs) in order to provide genetic care to their patients.

METHODS

Using a qualitative grounded theory approach, ten key informant interviews, and one urban and two rural PCP focus groups (FGs) (n = 19) were conducted. All PCPs practiced in Southeastern Ontario. Data was analyzed using a constant comparative method and thematic design. The data reported here represent a subset of a larger study.

RESULTS

Participants reported that PCPs have a responsibility to ensure patients receive genetic care. However, specific roles and responsibilities for that care were poorly defined. PCPs identified a need for further education and resources to enable them to provide care for individuals with genetic conditions. Based on the findings, a progressive stepped model that bridges primary and specialty genetic care was developed; the model ranged from PCPs identifying patients with genetic conditions that they could manage alone, to patients who they could manage with informal or electronic consultation to those who clearly required specialist referral.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs identified a need to integrate genetics into primary care practice but they perceived barriers including a lack of knowledge and confidence, access to timely formal and informal consultation and clearly defined roles for themselves and specialists. To address gaps in PCP confidence in providing genetic care, interventions that are directed at accessible just-in-time support and consultation have the potential to empower PCPs to manage patients' genetic conditions. Specific attention to content, timing, and accessibility of educational interventions is critical to address the needs of both urban and rural PCPs. A progressive framework for bridging primary to specialty care through a 'stepped' model for providing continuing medical education, and genetic care can was developed and can be used to guide future design and delivery of educational interventions and resources.

Primary care providers' lived experiences of genetics in practice

To effectively translate genetic advances into practice, engagement of primary care providers (PCPs) is essential. Using a qualitative, phenomenological methodology, we analyzed key informant interviews and focus groups designed to explore perspectives of urban and rural PCPs. PCPs endorsed a responsibility to integrate genetics into their practices and expected advances in genetic medicine to expand. However, PCPs reported limited knowledge and difficulties accessing resources, experts, and continuing education. Rural practitioners’ additional concerns included cost, distance, and poor patient engagement. PCPs’ perspectives are crucial to develop relevant educational and systems-based interventions to further expand genetic medicine in primary care.

The use of family history in primary health care: a qualitative study

The aim of this study is to describe how Belgian family physicians register and use the family history data of their patients in daily practice. Qualitative in-depth semistructured one-to-one interviews were conducted including 16 family physicians in Belgium. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed. Recurring themes were identified and compared with findings from the existing literature. All interviewed family physicians considered the family history as an important part of the medical records. Half of the surveyed physicians confirmed knowing the family history of at least 50% of their patients. The data on family history were mainly collected during the first consultations with the patient. The majority of physicians did not use a standardised questionnaire or form to collect and to record the family history. To estimate the impact of a family history, physicians seldom use official guidance or resources. Physicians perceived a lack of time and unreliable information provided by their patients as obstacles to collect and interpret the family history. Solutions that foster the use of family history data were identified at the level of the physician and also included the development of specific instruments integrated within the electronic medical record.

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.

Providers’ behavioral beliefs regarding the delivery of genomic medicine at the Veterans Health Administration

Aims: To examine providers’ behavioral intention toward the utilization of genomic services at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA; Washington, DC, USA) through the lens of the ‘Theory of Planned Behavior’. The theory of planned behavior posits that individuals’ behaviors (using genomic services) are driven by their behavioral intentions. Behavioral intentions is a function of: first, behavioral beliefs; second, normative beliefs, and third; control beliefs. Materials & methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 providers working in different units at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System (STVHCS; TX USA). The interviews focused on assessing providers’ behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs regarding the delivery of genomic medicine at the STVHCS. Interview materials were tape recorded, transcribed and the content was analyzed using qualitative methods. Results: All participating providers perceived genomic medicine to be an important area in medicine (behavioral beliefs). They agreed that the VHA has the necessary infrastructure to foster the delivery of genomic services. The majority of participants (n = 18; 90%) agreed that primary care providers will play a major role in delivering genomic services. Providers indicated that referents’ (other providers) opinions about genomic services may affect their decisions about whether to utilize genomic services (normative beliefs). However, most providers (n = 17; 85%) raised concerns about the impact of using genomic services on the process of care (control beliefs). Participants indicated that additional training for providers and patients, and decision support will facilitate the delivery of genomic services (control beliefs). Providers also identified three external barriers: first, uncertainty about genomic findings; second, coordination of care between primary care, specialists and genetic services (system level barriers); and third ethical issues associated with genomic information and services. Conclusion: Our findings highlight several opportunities and challenges related to the delivery of genomic medicine at the VHA. The results suggest that strategies to address providers’ concerns in the control beliefs domain may be necessary to enhance providers’ utilization of genomic services in clinical practice.

Family history in primary care: understanding GPs' resistance to clinical genetics--qualitative study

BACKGROUND

National and local evaluations of clinical genetics service pilots have experienced difficulty in engaging with GPs.

AIM

To understand GPs' reluctance to engage with clinical genetics service developments, via an examination of the role of family history in general practice.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Qualitative study using semi-structured one-to-one interviews.

SETTING

The West Midlands, UK.

METHOD

Interviews with 21 GPs working in 15 practices, based on a stratified random sample from the Midlands Research Practices Consortium database. Thematic analysis proceeded alongside data generation. Framework grids were constructed for comparative analytical questioning. Interpretation was framed by two explanatory models: a knowledge deficit model, and practice and professional identity model.

RESULTS

There is a clear distinction between the routine use and function of family history in GPs' clinical decision making, and contrasting conceptualisations of genetics and 'genetic conditions'. Although genetics is clearly a part of current GP practice, with acknowledgement of genetic components to multifactorial disease, this is distinguished from 'genetic conditions' which are seen as rare, complex single-gene disorders. Importantly, family history takes its place within a broader notion of the 'family doctor' that interviewees identified as a key aspect of their role. In contrast, clinical genetics was not identified as a core component of generalist practice.

CONCLUSION

The likely effectiveness of educational policy interventions aimed at GPs that focus solely on knowledge deficit models, is questionable. There is a need to acknowledge how appropriate practice is constructed by GPs, within the context of accepted generalist roles and related identities.

Motivating factors for physician ordering of factor V Leiden genetic tests

BACKGROUND

The factor V Leiden (FVL) genetic test is used by many physicians despite its uncertain clinical utility.

METHODS

We investigate whether self-reported motivations and behaviors concerning FVL genetic testing differ between 2 groups of primary care physicians defined by frequency of previous FVL test use. In January 2007, 112 physicians (60 frequent and 52 infrequent FVL test users) at Group Health, a large health care delivery system, were surveyed. Survey content areas included primary reasons and motivating factors for ordering the FVL test, the likelihood of ordering the FVL test for hypothetical patients, potential barriers to genetic testing, and practices and skills regarding FVL test ordering.

RESULTS

Responses between groups agreed concerning most clinical- and patient-related factors. Frequent-FVL physicians were more likely than infrequent-FVL physicians to report ordering the FVL test for hypothetical patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis (adjusted odds ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.55-13.53) or venous thrombosis after hospital discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 3.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-8.95). Frequent-FVL physicians were also less likely to identify several items on the survey as barriers to genetic testing and were more likely to report high confidence in interpreting and explaining FVL test results.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, both physician groups reported similar motivating factors for ordering FVL tests, and reported behaviors were consistent with existing guidelines. More striking differences were observed for measures such as barriers to and confidence in using genetic tests. Although additional research is necessary to evaluate the impact of these results, they inform several knowledge-to-practice translation issues that are important for the successful integration of genetic testing into primary care.

Assessing educational priorities in genetics for general practitioners and specialists in five countries: factor structure of the Genetic-Educational Priorities (Gen-EP) scale

PURPOSE

A scale assessing primary care physicians' priorities for genetic education (The Gen-EP scale) was developed and tested in five European countries. The objective of this study was to determine its factor structure, to test scaling assumptions and to determine internal consistency.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 3686 practitioners (general practitioners, gyneco-obstetricians, pediatricians) sampled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom. We first determined the factor structure of the Gen-EP scale (30 items) on the whole sample. Scaling assumptions were then tested on each country using multitrait scaling analysis. Internal consistency was assessed across the five countries.

RESULTS

Six factors were identified accounting for 63.3% of the variance of the items. They represented the following priorities for genetic education: "Genetics of Common Diseases"; "Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues"; "Approaching Genetic Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice"; "Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations"; "Techniques and Innovation in Genetics" and "Psychosocial and Counseling Issues." In each country, convergent and discriminant validity were satisfactory. Internal-consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were all above the acceptable threshold (0.70).

CONCLUSION

The Gen-EP scale could be a helpful instrument in different countries to organize and evaluate the impact of genetic educational programs for primary care providers.

Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners' educational priorities in European countries

PURPOSE

To assess how general practitioners (GPs) from European countries prioritized their genetic educational needs according to their geographic, sociodemographic, and educational characteristics.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey, random and total samples of GPs in five European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom), mailed questionnaires;

OUTCOME

Genetic Educational Priority Scale (30 items; six subscores).

RESULTS

A total 1168 GPs answered. Priorities differed (P < 0.001) but were consistently ranked across the countries. Previous education had a marginal effect on priorities. Women gave higher priorities than men to Genetics of Common Disorders (adjusted odds ratio [OR adj], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.8), Psychosocial and Counseling Issues (OR adj, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), and Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues (OR adj, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), but lower than men to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (OR adj, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9). Older physicians gave higher priorities to Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations (OR adj, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), and to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (OR adj: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), compared with their younger colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS

Expressed genetic educational needs vary according to the countries and sociodemographics. In accordance, training could be more focused on genetics of common disorders and on how to approach genetic risk in clinical practice rather than on ethics, new technologies, or basic concepts.

Risk Communication During Screening for Genomic Breast Cancer Susceptibility

Screening for genomic predisposition to diseases of adulthood is emerging in standard medical practice. Breast cancer predisposition testing provides a useful example for understanding the potential implications of risk-related screening in practice. Risk is an important and complex psychological construct that is understood differently both between scientific disciplines and between medical and lay persons. The process of establishing thresholds for classifying whether one's risk reaches levels warranting departure from standard preventive strategies is an important predictor of both physician feedback and patient interpretation of their risk. Messages about genomic breast cancer risk arising during the pedigree screening context are conveyed via explicit and implicit modes of communication. Best practices for communicating about genomic risk and the implications for health disparities related to screening for genomic susceptibility remain unknown. More work is urgently needed given the societal forces that are catalyzing population-based screening for genomic predisposition into the routine practice of preventive medicine.

Attitudes about genetics in underserved, culturally diverse populations

OBJECTIVE

New medical discoveries regarding genetic susceptibility to common chronic diseases, and the decoding of the human genome have increased public attention to genetics. What information is understood and what attitudes exist towards genetics and genetic research have not been well examined in underserved, culturally diverse communities.

METHODS

To better understand attitudes and beliefs towards genetics and genetic testing in these groups, we conducted eight focus groups with 55 patients and health care workers in New York City and Westchester, N.Y., in English, Spanish, and Chinese.

RESULTS

Focus group participants had limited understanding about genetics or genetic testing. Newborn screening was the least-known genetic issue, even among health care workers. Regardless of their cultural group, most participants expressed a desire for more information about genetics and genetic tests. Latinos and Chinese participants generally expressed positive attitudes towards genetic studies and genetic testing, with the possibility of preventing diseases cited as the main advantage. Black Americans and Non-Hispanic Whites reported mixed feelings about genetic research and genetic testing. Concerns expressed included: anxiety before receiving test results or waiting for a disease to develop, fear of genetic discrimination by health and life insurance companies and employers, not having the financial means to deal with genetic diseases in themselves or a sick child, concern that children and adults are having too many tests. Black Americans expressed the most concern for possibly harmful use of genetic information.

CONCLUSIONS

Minority populations of diverse cultures have limited knowledge about genetics and genetic testing, would like to have more information, and are not well reached by the current educational approaches. Participants knew the least about newborn screening, a test that is mandatory in the New York State. While genetic knowledge by minority populations was perhaps not different from the level of knowledge of consumers in general, minority populations are at particular risk of being left behind because of historically poor access to information and services.

Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: A global problem

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to assess knowledge of genetics and awareness of genetic tests among Dutch general practitioners (GPs), gynecologists (GYNs), and pediatricians (PEDs), as well as factors influencing their knowledge and awareness.

METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire inquiry was used, validated with a sample of 52 clinical geneticists (CGs). The study was carried out in primary care (general practice) and secondary care (general and university hospitals) in The Netherlands. A random sample of 200 GPs, 300 GYNs, and 265 PEDs received a questionnaire. In addition, all registered CGs (58) received a questionnaire for validation. In total, 122 GPs, 187 GYNs, 164 PEDs, and 52 CGs returned a completed questionnaire. The main outcome measures were differences in knowledge scores between physicians working in different disciplines and factors influencing these scores.

RESULTS

Knowledge scores of GPs (mean 64% correct answers, 61%-66% [95% confidence interval]), GYNs (mean 75% correct answers, 73%-76% [95% confidence interval]), and PEDs (mean 81% correct answers, 79%-82% [95% confidence interval]) were lower than those in the CG validation group (mean 95% correct answers, 94%-96% [95% confidence interval]). The 5th percentile of GPs, GYNs, and PEDs was at approximately 40%, 52% and 62% correct answers, respectively. There was a specific lack of knowledge about DNA testing. In addition to specialty, important factors positively associated with the knowledge scores of nongeneticists are more recent graduation, having taken an elective course in genetics, and providing genetic counseling in their own practice.

CONCLUSION

The overall knowledge levels of genetics in many nongeneticist health care providers show clear deficiencies. This is in line with reports from other countries, showing that these deficiencies are a global problem.

Educating general practitioners about prenatal testing: approaches and challenges

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of an education intervention on the knowledge and practice behaviours of general practitioners (GPs) regarding prenatal screening and diagnostic testing in Melbourne, Australia.

METHODS

A single group, pre-test, repeated post-test design was used. Information on demographics, knowledge, behaviours and skills was collected via a self-administered questionnaire prior to the educational intervention. Responses to individual questions were coded and scores calculated, as well as a percent total score. Following the education, data were again collected, immediately afterwards (Post-Q) and six-to-eight months later (Foll-Q).

RESULTS

Data for all three time points were collected from 63 GPs and showed a variable, and relatively poor knowledge regarding aspects of prenatal testing, especially before education. The percent mean total score at baseline was 51.2+/-1.59% (CI 48.02 to 54.39), which increased significantly (p<0.001) in both Post-Q (62.88+/-1.51%; CI 59.86 to 65.89) and Foll-Q (58.92+/-1.6%; CI 55.71 to 62.12).

CONCLUSION

The educational intervention significantly increased knowledge and practice behaviour of GPs, even up to eight months later, but this could be improved further, to a considerable extent. There is a need for ongoing multi-faceted approaches to educating GPs on prenatal testing to ensure that they are engaged in appropriate practice.

Integrating genetics as practices of primary care

This study examines the responses of general practitioners (GPs) in Vic., Australia to an increased emphasis on genetics in primary care. A qualitative analysis of focus group interviews with GPs in regional and metropolitan areas and one focus group interview with genetics experts showed that despite the emphasis placed on genetics by the experts, GPs remained ambivalent to the routine integration of genetics into general practice. This response from GPs has been noted in several studies and is most commonly attributed to GPs' lack of knowledge about genetics. In this study we argue that a 'cognitive deficit' understanding of the problem excludes many of the factors that GPs regard as important in relating genetics to primary care. We show that GPs' ambivalence emerges from how they situate genetics within practices of patient care and in relation to what they regard as good patient management. We found that GPs respond most enthusiastically to genetics and genetic testing if they feel it changes their management in ways they consider of benefit to their patients. GPs have specialist skills in managing the heterogeneity of patient care and these skills enable them to situate genetics relative to the overall needs of patients. Preparing GPs to 'do' genetics when the need arises by finding ways to make genetics information available to them as the need arises would facilitate the integration of genetics as practices of primary care.

How can we help? From "sociology in" to "sociology of" bioethics

Sociology and bioethics have an uneasy relationship. Bioethicists find sociology helpful for describing and analyzing ethical issues, but they are less enthusiastic when bioethics becomes the subject of sociological scrutiny. After review of different sociological approaches to bioethical topics -- descriptive, evaluative, and analytical -- I explain how bioethics will benefit by using the tools of sociology to answer its questions ("sociology in bioethics") and by allowing sociology to use bioethics to answer sociological questions ("sociology of bioethics").

Genetics Providers and the Family Covenant: Connecting Individuals with Their Families

As genetic testing becomes more commonplace, medicine will likely face both family and individual demands for access to, and control of, test result information. Past research has emphasized confidentiality concerns of the individual and contrasted these claims with the "need to know" by others to avoid harm. These confidentiality concerns, based on individual self-interest, are challenged by a singularly important aspect of genetic testing-familial responsibility. As patients are often motivated to obtain genetic testing by an array of "other-directed" considerations toward their own family (such as love, fiduciary responsibility, gratitude, etc.), an accounting of these concerns is warranted. Understanding the relevance of family relationships and obligations facilitates a fuller informed consent for genetic testing. Genetic counselors and geneticists engaging in genetic counseling can account for the concerns of both individuals and their families using the family covenant-a helpful, innovative model to address proactively boundaries of privacy and information sharing within the family. This model focuses on two areas of discussion: (1) the demarcation of the boundaries of confidentiality; and (2) the definition of "family." The family covenant helps genetics providers consider what information "should" be confidential, and with respect to whom.

Use of cancer susceptibility testing among primary care physicians

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are assuming greater roles in cancer risk assessment and susceptibility testing of patients. The objective of this study was to assess the beliefs and practices of PCPs relative to genetic susceptibility testing for cancer. A cross-sectional survey was mailed to 726 PCPs in community-based practices in southeastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey. Data were collected on physician background, cognitive and psychosocial factors, practice environment, and patient factors. The main outcome measure was physician self-reported recommendation or referral of patients for cancer genetic susceptibility testing in a 12-month period prior to the survey. Of those surveyed, 475 (65%) PCPs responded. Complete survey data were available for 433 PCPs. Multivariable analyses show that factors positively associated with PCP recommendation/referral included: patient inquiry about their need for genetic testing for cancer (p < 0.001); PCP belief that patient age is the best predictor of cancer risk (p = 0.01); PCP self-reported frequency of collecting patient diet information (p = 0.01) and medical history information (p = 0.01); and PCP participation in an integrated health system (p = 0.01). PCP use of cancer genetic susceptibility testing may be influenced by patient inquiry, provider beliefs about factors that affect cancer risk, provider collection of risk-assessment data, and provider practice environment.

Finnish physicians' interest in genetic screening

OBJECTIVES

To report on Finnish physicians' opinions on the possible future use of genetic screening and their interest in knowing their own risk for diseases.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey mailed to gynaecologists, paediatricians, general practitioners and clinical geneticists. Both leading physicians and a sample of other practitioners were included (response rate 74%, n=571).

RESULTS

Physicians preferred genetic testing of people at risk over population-wide screening. Breast and colon cancer, familial hypercholesterolaemia and juvenile diabetes were diseases for which screening was most often considered useful. The most popular target group was the whole population. Opinions on the stability of genetic screening were not uniform, and physicians did not take a stand on genetic screening as a whole but differentiated by disease and target group. Those wanting to know their own risk for diseases supported screening procedures in general more than did other physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians were not enthusiastic about genetic screening. Nevertheless, testing of individuals with a family history of certain diseases is likely to become more widespread.

Likelihood of attending bowel screening after a negative genetic test result: the possible influence of health professionals

This study was undertaken to determine the extent to which the reported likelihood of attending future bowel screening following negative genetic testing results for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) varies between the type of health professional providing care and the country of testing. The study subjects were 103 unaffected adults at risk for FAP who received negative results following predictive DNA testing. Our study indicates that the reported likelihood of attending bowel screening was higher in those given results by nongenetics physicians, rather than by genetics professionals; the reported likelihood of attending bowel screening under these circumstances was also higher in the UK than in Australia. Both of these results were affected by the perceived chances of developing FAP, and, in the case of the country of testing, by the perceived accuracy of the genetic test result and the perceived seriousness of the disease. How and what health professionals communicate with patients about genetic testing may explain the differences between type of health professional and country of testing and attitudes toward bowel screening. If this is the case, training in communication may change patients' perceptions and, in turn, their behavioral intentions and actions following a negative test result.

Houseofficers' reactions to media coverage about the sequencing of the human genome

After the announcement that sequencing of the human genome was nearly complete, media coverage was extensive. In light of ample evidence that the media are a primary source of health and science information, even for health professionals, media portrayals are often inaccurate or misleading, and discoveries that emanate from sequencing the human genome are likely to influence future health care, it is important to assess physicians' interpretations of media coverage about the human genome announcement. This paper describes the reactions of a sample of new physicians in the United States to this announcement, as well as the content of the stories they read or heard. Semi-structured surveys were distributed to all incoming houseofficers during Orientation at one major academic medical center. Eighty-one percent of 190 houseofficers returned a survey; 123 completed surveys were analyzed. Fifty-four percent of respondents thought the media message was only positive and 21% thought it was negative or mixed. Participants who reported radio as their media source were less likely to recall positive messages (p<0.05). Sixty-five percent and 76%, respectively, had positive perceptions of the impact of the accomplishment on people and on the medical profession. Overall, 48% were enthusiastic and 52% were guarded about the accomplishment. Enthusiasm was related to being an adult primary care houseofficer (p=0.07) or to having heard about it on television or in the newspaper (p<0.05). Of the 36 stories analyzed, newspaper and television reports focused more on medical implications and radio reports focused more on ethical issues. The degree of enthusiasm about the accomplishment reflects the content of the media coverage, and, at least for adult primary care houseofficers, probably reflects the increasing relevance of genetic discoveries to medical practice. Since physicians obtain much of their health and science information from the media, they can play an instrumental role in helping their patients interpret media coverage of advances in genetics and their impact on health care. However, this will require that physicians develop an appreciation of the newsmaking process, and how subtle interactions between politics, the media and science influence the "framing" of media coverage.

Ethics and practice: two worlds? The example of genetic counselling

The aim of this paper is to work out the relationship between ethics and practice with reference to genetic counselling. First, the most important principles with respect to genetic counselling and to counsellor-client-interaction, are explained briefly. Then, we discuss what these principles might mean, when applied to the practice of counselling. To do so, we also look at some empirical data. Finally, we draw some conclusions.

The genetic family history as a risk assessment tool in internal medicine

PURPOSE

The study goals were to (1) determine the proportion of unselected individuals at increased risk for diseases with known genetic components and (2) compare the documentation and quality of risk assessment between a questionnaire, a pedigree interview, and chart review.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients seen in a division of internal medicine were randomized into two groups, which completed a questionnaire or underwent a pedigree interview. Chart notes were compared to both study tools.

RESULTS

Sixty-two (79.5%) of the 78 participants scored at increased risk for at least one category. Either of the two study tools found significantly more people at high risk (48/78, 61.5%) than the chart review (31/78, 39.7%) (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 20% of patients in an unselected internal medicine practice were at an increased risk that was not documented in reviewed chart notes. Targeted family history analysis reveals patients who require increased medical surveillance, preventive measures, or genetic counseling/testing.

Needs assessment study of genetics education for general practitioners in Australia

PURPOSE

Because of the explosion of genetic information resulting from the Human Genome Project and other developments in genetics and genetic technologies, primary care practitioners in Australia will be expected to have a much greater role in the practice of genetic medicine; however, little is published regarding their knowledge and attitudes to genetics, technologies, or genetics education. This study aimed to determine the genetics knowledge and educational needs of general practitioners (GPs) in Victoria, Australia, and their experiences in dealing with genetics in their practices.

METHODS

Qualitative research methods were used primarily to obtain data from focus groups, interviews, and a limited survey.

RESULTS

GPs believed their knowledge of genetics was poor and they felt inadequately prepared to manage patients with genetic conditions. They identified testing and counseling as areas that particularly needed strengthening.

CONCLUSION

These data, together with GPs' suggestions about educational strategies, are essential for developing appropriate genetics education programs and resources that are relevant for Australian health care.

Primary care physicians' perceptions of barriers to genetic testing and their willingness to participate in research

Our objective was to explore the barriers and motivations to: 1) appropriate diffusion of genetic services into primary care practice; and 2) primary care physicians' (PCPs) willingness to participate in clinical studies to assess the safety and effectiveness of emerging genetic technologies. A random sample (n = 994) of PCPs was invited to be interviewed. Of the 80 who agreed, 60 were interviewed, 52 by telephone. A semi-structured guide was used. A questionnaire mailed to 752 of the PCPs was used to elicit information from physicians who did not want to be interviewed. Among interviewees, uncertainty as to the clinical utility and clinical validity of predictive genetic testing were the leading barriers to incorporation of this technology into practice, being mentioned by 60 and 43% of subjects, respectively. Of the 100 (13. 3%) physicians returning the questionnaire who declined to be interviewed, 30% said they would be willing to participate in research on the safety and effectiveness of predictive genetic tests. Of those who were interviewed, 92% were willing to participate in such research. Most physicians do not see genetics as important in their practice today; many anticipate greater importance in the future. The proportion of physicians interested in participating in research to assess the safety and effectiveness of genetic tests is sufficient to make large scale, collaborative, practice-based evaluation feasible. Additionally, participation in research may serve as an effective medium for physician education in genetics.