The 'new genetics' and primary care: GPs' views on their role and their educational needs

The practice of genomic medicine: A delineation of the process and its governing principles

Genomic medicine, an emerging medical discipline, applies the principles of evolution, developmental biology, functional genomics, and structural genomics within clinical care. Enabling widespread adoption and integration of genomic medicine into clinical practice is key to achieving precision medicine. We delineate a biological framework defining diagnostic utility of genomic testing and map the process of genomic medicine to inform integration into clinical practice. This process leverages collaboration and collective cognition of patients, principal care providers, clinical genomic specialists, laboratory geneticists, and payers. We detail considerations for referral, triage, patient intake, phenotyping, testing eligibility, variant analysis and interpretation, counseling, and management within the utilitarian limitations of health care systems. To reduce barriers for clinician engagement in genomic medicine, we provide several decision-making frameworks and tools and describe the implementation of the proposed workflow in a prototyped electronic platform that facilitates genomic care. Finally, we discuss a vision for the future of genomic medicine and comment on areas for continued efforts.

Family history recording in UK general practice: the lIFeLONG study

BACKGROUND

In order to integrate genomic medicine into routine patient care and stratify personal risk, it is increasingly important to record family history (FH) information in general/family practice records. This is true for classic genetic disease as well as multifactorial conditions. Research suggests that FH recording is currently inadequate.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an up-to-date analysis of the frequency, quality, and accuracy of FH recording in UK general/family practice.

METHODS

An exploratory study, based at St Leonard's Practice, Exeter-a suburban UK general/family practice. Selected adult patients registered for over 1 year were contacted by post and asked to complete a written FH questionnaire. The reported information was compared with the patients' electronic medical record (EMR). Each EMR was assessed for its frequency (how often information was recorded), quality (the level of detail included), and accuracy (how closely the information matched the patient report) of FH recording.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-one patients were approached, 65 (27.0%) responded and 62 (25.7%) were eligible to participate. Forty-three (69.4%) EMRs contained FH information. The most commonly recorded conditions were bowel cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The mean quality score was 3.64 (out of 5). There was little negative recording. 83.2% of patient-reported FH information was inaccurately recorded or missing from the EMRs.

CONCLUSION

FH information in general/family practice records should be better prepared for the genomic era. Whilst some conditions are well recorded, there is a need for more frequent, higher quality recording with greater accuracy, especially for multifactorial conditions.

Effectiveness of preconception care interventions in primary care: a systematic review protocol

Background

Pregnancy outcomes can be adversely affected by a range of modifiable risk factors, including alcohol consumption, smoking, obesity, drug use, and poor nutrition, during the preconception period. Preconception care (PCC) involves interventions that identify and seek to change behavioural, biomedical, and social risks present in reproductive-aged women and men. Primary care is well situated to offer PCC interventions but the effectiveness of these interventions is not clear.

Aim

To evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based PCC delivered to reproductive-aged women and/or men to improve health knowledge, reduce preconception risk factors, and improve pregnancy outcomes.

Design & setting

A systematic review of primary care-based PCC.

Method

Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases will be searched for English language studies published between July 1999 and May 2021. For inclusion, the PCC intervention must be provided in a primary care setting and intervention recipients must be reproductive-aged women and/or men. All stages of screening and data extraction will involve a dual review. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be used to assess the methodological quality of studies. This protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) reporting guidelines.

Conclusion

Findings will determine the effectiveness of primary care-based preconception interventions delivered to reproductive-aged women and men on improving health knowledge, reducing risk factors, and improving pregnancy outcomes. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease

BACKGROUND

Globally, about 6% of children are born with a serious birth defect of genetic or partially genetic origin. Carrier screening or testing is one way to identify couples at increased risk of having a child with an autosomal recessive condition. The most common autosomal recessive conditions are thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, with higher carrier rates in high-risk populations of specific ancestral backgrounds. Identifying and counselling couples at genetic risk of the conditions before pregnancy enables them to make fully informed reproductive decisions, with some of these choices not being available if testing is only offered in an antenatal setting. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to enable autonomous reproductive choice and to improve reproductive outcomes  in women and their partners who are both identified as carriers of thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease in healthcare settings when compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Registers. Date of latest search of the registers: 04 August 2021. In addition, we searched for all relevant trials from 1970 (or the date at which the database was first available if after 1970) to date using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), clinical trial databases (National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials Search portal of the World Health Organization, metaRegister of controlled clinical trials), and hand searching of key journals and conference abstract books from 1998 to date (European Journal of Human Genetics, Genetics in Medicine, Journal of Community Genetics). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and guidelines and also contacted subject experts in the field to request any unpublished or other published trials. Date of latest search of all these sources: 25 June 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs (published or unpublished) comparing reproductive outcomes of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease when compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 37 papers, describing 22 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, we found no RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease are included. A trial identified earlier has published its results and has subsequently been listed as excluded in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As there are no RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease included in either the earlier or current versions of this review, we recommend considering potential non-RCTs studies (for example prospective cohorts or before-and-after studies) for future reviews. While RCTs are desirable to inform evidence-based practice and robust recommendations, the ethical, legal and social implications associated with using this trial design to evaluate the implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment involving carrier testing and reproductive autonomy must also be considered.  In addition, rather than focusing on single gene-by-gene carrier testing for specific autosomal-recessive conditions as the intervention being evaluated, preconception expanded genetic screening should also be included in future searches as this has received much attention in recent years as a more pragmatic strategy. The research evidence for current international policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.

How practice setting affects family physicians' views on genetic screening: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Genetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages.

OBJECTIVE

To explore FP attitudes, perceived roles, motivators and barriers, towards GS; and explore similarities and differences between private and public sector FPs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-structured interview guide using existing literature. We interviewed private and public sector FPs recruited by purposive, convenience and snowballing strategies, by telephone or video to theme saturation. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded for themes by two independent researchers with an adjudicator.

RESULTS

Thirty FPs were interviewed (15 private, 15 public). Theme saturation was reached for each group. A total of 12 themes (6 common, 3 from private-practice participants, 3 public-employed participants) emerged. Six common major themes emerged: personal lack of training and experience, roles and relevance of GS to family medicine, reluctance and resistance to adding GS to practice, FP motivations for adoption, patient factors as barrier, and potential solutions. Three themes (all facilitators) were unique to the private group: strong rapport with patients, high practice autonomy, and high patient literacy. Three themes (all barriers) were unique to the public group: lack of control, patients' lower socioeconomic status, and rigid administrative infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

FPs are motivated to incorporate GS but need support for implementation. Policy-makers should consider the practice setting when introducing new screening functions. Strategies to change FP behaviours should be sensitive to their sense of autonomy, and the external factors (either as facilitators or as barriers) shaping FP practices in a given clinical setting.

The impact of needs-based education on the change of knowledge and attitudes towards medical genetics in medical students

In this research we aimed to (1) develop and validate a new questionnaire examining attitudes and knowledge towards medical genetics, (2) examine the knowledge and attitudes towards medical genetics in students of the Medical Faculty in Rijeka, Croatia and (3) evaluate the impact of education from the mandatory course Medical Genetics on the change of knowledge and attitudes. The study was conducted on 191 fifth- and sixth-year students of the Integrated Undergraduate and Graduate University Study of Medicine in the academic year 2019/2020. Students completed the validated online questionnaire anonymously and voluntarily. Fifth-year students completed the questionnaire twice (beginning/end of the course), while sixth-year students completed the questionnaire once, 3 months after completing the course. The education was carefully designed for medical students according to the CoreCompetences in Genetics for Health Professionals in Europe issued by the European Society of Human Genetics. Using the Kruskal-Wallis test, a statistically significant difference was found between fifth year before and after education and between the fifth year before education and sixth year for (a) total knowledge (P < 0.001), (b) total attitudes (P < 0.001) and (c) personal assessment of knowledge in medical genetics (P < 0.001). Moreover, positive attitudes were associated with higher levels of knowledge. In conclusion, our results emphasise the importance of needs-based education in medical genetics for medical students, which is indispensable for the increase in the level of knowledge and development of positive attitudes in order to provide better health care for patients with genetic disorders.

Clinical implementation of an oncology-specific family health history risk assessment tool

BACKGROUND

The presence of hereditary cancer syndromes in cancer patients can have an impact on current clinical care and post-treatment prevention and surveillance measures. Several barriers inhibit identification of hereditary cancer syndromes in routine practice. This paper describes the impact of using a patient-facing family health history risk assessment platform on the identification and referral of breast cancer patients to genetic counselling services.

METHODS

This was a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study completed in breast cancer clinics. English-literate patients not previously referred for genetic counselling and/or gone through genetic testing were offered enrollment. Consented participants were provided educational materials on family health history collection, entered their family health history into the platform and completed a satisfaction survey. Upon completion, participants and their clinicians were given personalized risk reports. Chart abstraction was done to identify actions taken by patients, providers and genetic counsellors.

RESULTS

Of 195 patients approached, 102 consented and completed the study (mean age 55.7, 100 % women). Sixty-six (65 %) met guideline criteria for genetic counseling of which 24 (36 %) were referred for genetic counseling. Of those referred, 13 (54 %) participants attended and eight (33 %) completed genetic testing. On multivariate logistic regression, referral was not associated with age, cancer stage, or race but was associated with clinical provider (p = 0.041). Most providers (71 %) had higher referral rates during the study compared to prior. The majority of participants found the experience useful (84 %), were more aware of their health risks (83 %), and were likely to recommend using a patient-facing platform to others (69 %).

CONCLUSIONS

65 % of patients attending breast cancer clinics in this study are at-risk for hereditary conditions based on current guidelines. Using a patient-facing risk assessment platform enhances the ability to identify these patients systematically and with widespread acceptability and recognized value by patients. As only a third of at-risk participants received referrals for genetic counseling, further understanding barriers to referral is needed to optimize hereditary risk assessment in oncology practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NIH Clinical Trials registry, NCT04639934 . Registered Nov 23, 2020 -- Retrospectively registered.

Factors influencing medical practitioner participation in population carrier screening for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier screening should be offered to people planning a pregnancy or in early pregnancy, according to current recommendations. However, research indicates rates of offering CF carrier screening are low. Health professionals (HPs) play an important role in offering population carrier screening.

AIMS

To determine the opinions, knowledge and practice patterns of HPs with regard to the routine offering of population carrier screening for CF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five key informant interviews informed the development of an online questionnaire which was distributed to a select group of HPs involved in prenatal care in Victoria, Australia.

RESULTS

Of the participants who completed the questionnaire (n = 87), 35.6% reported offering CF carrier screening to all patients attending for preconception or early pregnancy consultations. High referrers of CF carrier screening were more likely to be female, work in the private sector, in metropolitan areas and specialise as an obstetrician. High referrers demonstrated a greater level of knowledge of CF and carrier screening than low referrers (t = -3.779, P < 0.001). Low referrers perceived more barriers to offering carrier screening than high referrers (t = 2.125, P = 0.037). Low referrers were more likely to perceive lack of community awareness and HP knowledge as a barrier to offering CF carrier screening, compared to high referrers, who were more likely to perceive time constraints as a barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

To promote routine offering of population CF carrier screening, resources are needed to improve knowledge and provide clinical support thereby reducing perceived barriers.

Is family history still underutilised? Exploring the views and experiences of primary care doctors in Malaysia

Family history has long been recognised as a non-invasive and inexpensive tool to identify individuals at risk of genetic conditions. Even in the era of evolving genetic and genomic technology, the role of family history in predicting individual risk for genetic testing and guiding in preventive interventions is still relevant, especially in low-resource countries. The aim of this study was to explore primary care doctors' views and experiences in family history taking and how they utilised family history in day-to-day clinical consultations in Malaysia. Four focus group discussions and six in-depth interviews involving 25 primary care doctors were conducted. Three themes emerged from the analysis: (1) primary care doctors considered family history as an important part of clinical assessment, (2) proactive versus reactive approach in collecting family history and (3) family history collection was variable and challenging. Family history was documented in either free text or pedigree depending on the perception of its appropriateness during the consultation. This study highlighted the need to improve the approach, documentation and the implementation of family history in the Malaysian primary care settings. Integrating family filing concept with built-in clinical decision support into electronic medical records is a potential solution in ensuring effective family history taking in primary care.

Universal tumor screening for lynch syndrome: perspectives of patients regarding willingness and informed consent

Aim: Lynch Syndrome is associated with a significant risk of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and other cancers. Universal tumor screening is a strategy to identify high-risk individuals by testing all CRC tumors for molecular features suggestive of Lynch Syndrome. Patient interest in screening and preferences for consent have been underexplored. Methods: A postal survey was administered to CRC patients in a Canadian province. Results: Most patients (81.4%) were willing to have tumors tested if universal tumor screening were available and were willing to discuss test results with family members and healthcare professionals. The majority (62.6%) preferred informed consent be obtained prior to screening. Conclusion: Patients were supportive of universal screening. They expected consent to be obtained, contrary to current practice across Canada and elsewhere.

Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Nutrigenetics: Findings from the 2018 Unified Forces Preventive Nutrition Conference (UFPN)

Background: Nutrigenetics indicates that individual genetic variability results in altered health outcomes necessitating personalized nutrition adaptation. Registered dietitians are recognized as the clinical nutrition experts, but their knowledge and attitudes regarding nutrigenetics has not been delineated. Methods: This cross sectional online survey was conducted in a convenience sample of 169 national nutrition conference attendees. The survey queried demographics, knowledge, and attitudes towards nutrigenetics and information on training in nutrigenetics. Results: The majority of participants were registered dietitians and female, 45% of whom held advanced degrees. Personalized nutrition was perceived by 93.5% of participants as highly important or important; however, 94% of respondents indicated they are not sufficiently knowledgeable in personalized nutrition and only 9.5% had received training in nutrigenetics. The mean nutrigenetics knowledge score was 6.89 ± 1.67 (out of a possible 12). A multivariate regression model of knowledge score identified education as the only independent predictor of this outcome. Conclusion: Personalized nutrition is a rapidly developing field that incorporates genetic data into clinical practice. Dietitians recognize the importance of advanced studies to acquire knowledge in nutrigenetics. Only by acquiring the necessary knowledge can dietitians accurately translate this nutrigenetics into clinical practice.

Responsibility in dealing with genetic risk information

Predictive testing information raises questions about risk communication, health responsibility, and about how to deal with the gap between knowledge of risks and options to act on this knowledge. For some diseases identified by predictive testing, specific treatments or interventions are available, while other diseases, thus far, remain untreatable or unpreventable; this triggers different forms of responsibility. Gender also often intersects with moral responsibility, regarding risk communication but also responsibilities of care which may become necessary with a family member’s onset of disease. The aim of the study was to analyze laypeople’s attitudes towards predictive testing with a special focus on forms of responsibility arising while dealing with uncertainty of risk information. We conducted seven focus groups with laypeople (n = 43) in four German cities in 2016. Participants were provided with different genetic testing scenarios (breast cancer, early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, pharmacogenetics in rectal cancer) for discussing their responsibilities and risk perceptions. We identified three different forms of responsibility: self-responsibility and self-care, family responsibility and care for others, and professional responsibility. For laypeople, the decision for predictive genetic testing seems voluntary and free from external constraint; however, both family and professional conditions influence an individual’s decision.

Population Whole Exome Screening: Primary Care Provider Attitudes About Preparedness, Information Avoidance, and Nudging

Compared to clinicians previously surveyed, primary care providers employed in a health system known for clinical genomics were more likely to have ordered or referred a patient for genetic testing, but had only modestly more genetics training and reported similarly low levels of comfort answering patient questions about genetic risk. Most supported population genomic screening, reported willingness to get screened themselves, and judged a hypothetical patient's decision to be screened favorably relative to a similar patient's decision to decline screening. Stakeholder perceptions of the ethical appropriateness of nudging at-risk patients to discuss testing with counselors were mixed.

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.

Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

A growing demand for cancer genetic services has led to suggestions for the involvement of GPs. How, and in which conditions, they can be involved, and whether there are important barriers to implementation should be ascertained.

AIM

To review the tools available, clinician attitudes and experiences, and the effects on patients of genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of papers published worldwide between 1996 and 2017.

METHOD

The MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases and grey literature were searched for entries dating from January 1996 to December 2017. Study quality was assessed with relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool checklists and a narrative synthesis of findings was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 40 studies were included in the review. A variety of testing and screening tools were available for genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice, principally for breast, breast-ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk. GPs often reported low knowledge and confidence to engage with genetic cancer risk assessment; however, despite time pressures and concerns about confidentiality and the impact of results on family members, some recognised the potential importance relating to such a development of the GP's role. Studies found few reported benefits for patients. Concerns about negative impacts on patient anxiety and cancer worries were largely not borne out.

CONCLUSION

GPs may have a potential role in identifying patients at risk of hereditary cancer that can be facilitated by family-history tools. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the implementation of population-wide screening for genetic cancer risk, especially given the competing demands of general practice.

[Prevention of genetic diseases : the return of the family practitioner ?]

BACKGROUND

Information to kin is one of the major ethical problems of the new genetics. In France, the revised bioethics law in 2011 created the possibility for patients to authorize professionals, under certain conditions, to directly contact their relatives at risk. Beyond this, other actors, such as GPs, could however play a role in this process.

METHODS

Our article is based on an ethnographic-type sociological study by observations and semi-structured interviews with patients (n=59) and genetic professionals (n=16) that took place from 2014 to 2016 in three genetic hospital wards in France and Canada. It focuses particularly on genetic predispositions to breast and ovarian cancers as well as genetic hemochromatosis.

RESULTS

Because of its position as a primary care specialist, the general practitioner can play a decisive role in the process of informing relatives about genetic disorders. Upstream of the genetic test, the generalist, thanks to his knowledge of the family context of his patients, can play a referral role towards a specialized consultation. Downstream, it can also ensure a more effective follow-up of the information procedures undertaken by its patients thanks to the medical follow-up that it carries out.

CONCLUSION

The data collected during our study highlight the unprecedented place that could be that of the general practitioner in the field of prevention in genetics. At the articulation between primary care and highly specialized care, it is the figure of the "family" doctor who seems to be called here to be renewed by genetics.

Engagement with Genetic Information and Uptake of Genetic Testing: the Role of Trust and Personal Cancer History

We used national survey data to (1) determine the extent to which individuals trust the sources from which they are most likely to receive information about cancer-related genetic tests (BRCA1/2, Lynch syndrome), (2) examine how level of trust for sources of genetic information might be related to cancer-related genetic testing uptake, and (3) determine whether key factors, such as cancer history and numeracy, moderate the latter association. We used cross-sectional data from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Our study sample included individuals who responded that they had heard or read about genetic tests (n = 1117). All analyses accounted for complex survey design. Although respondents trusted information from health professionals the most, they were significantly less likely to report hearing about genetic testing from such professionals than via television (p < 0.01). Regardless of source, higher levels of trust in the information source from which participants heard about genetic tests were associated with increased odds of genetic testing uptake, particularly among those with a personal cancer history. Numeracy was not associated with genetic testing uptake. Because health professionals were among the most trusted health information sources, they may serve as important brokers of genetic testing information for those with a personal cancer history.

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.

Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease

BACKGROUND

Globally, about five per cent of children are born with congenital or genetic disorders. The most common autosomal recessive conditions are thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, with higher carrier rates in specific patient populations. Identifying and counselling couples at genetic risk of the conditions before pregnancy enables them to make fully informed reproductive decisions, with some of these choices not being available if genetic counselling is only offered in an antenatal setting. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to improve reproductive outcomes in women and their partners who are identified as carriers of thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease in healthcare settings when compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Registers. In addition, we searched for all relevant trials from 1970 (or the date at which the database was first available if after 1970) to date using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), clinical trial databases (National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials Search portal of the World Health Organization, metaRegister of controlled clinical trials), and hand searching of key journals and conference abstract books from 1998 to date (European Journal of Human Genetics, Genetics in Medicine, Journal of Community Genetics). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and guidelines and also contacted subject experts in the field to request any unpublished or other published trials.Date of latest search of the registers: 20 June 2017.Date of latest search of all other sources: 16 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (published or unpublished) comparing reproductive outcomes of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease when compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 25 papers, describing 16 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were included. One ongoing trial has been identified which may potentially eligible for inclusion once completed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease were found for inclusion in this review, the research evidence for current policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.Information from well-designed, adequately powered, randomised trials is desirable in order to make more robust recommendations for practice. However, such trials must also consider the legal, ethical, and cultural barriers to implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Feelings of Women With Strong Family Histories Who Subsequent to Their Breast Cancer Diagnosis Tested BRCA Positive

OBJECTIVE

Family physicians in Canada as reported in several studies do not recognize the importance of family history in relation to breast/ovarian cancer and thus Canadian women with strong family histories continue to develop early-onset breast cancer without the knowledge of or ability to make choices regarding increased surveillance or preventative strategies. This study explored the feelings of women who learned about their hereditary risk only after their diagnosis younger than 52 years and who eventually tested positive for a BRCA gene mutation.

METHODS

Thirty-four such women were mailed an invitation to participate in this research including a letter of information, consent form, and discussion prompts for their written narrative response. Rigorous mixed method analyses were performed using Charmaz-based qualitative analyses as well as quantitative analyses.

RESULTS

Thirteen women (38.2%) responded with narratives for qualitative analysis from which 4 themes were coconstructed as follows: I, types of emotions; II, emotional response; III, coping with emotions; and IV, advice to women at similar risk. Women felt they should have learned about their hereditary risk from their family physician and through public education before their diagnosis. Although not experienced at the time of diagnosis, anger, frustration, and regret were experienced after receiving their BRCA results. These emotions arose from our research participants' lack of opportunity for prior genetic counseling and testing opportunity for genetic counseling and testing.

CONCLUSIONS

With increased public and physician education, it is hoped that women with significant family histories of breast/ovarian cancer will be identified before diagnosis and given options regarding cancer surveillance and risk reduction strategies.

Knowledge structure and theme trends analysis on general practitioner research: A Co-word perspective

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) are the most important providers of primary health care, as proven by related research published several decades ago. However, the knowledge structure and theme trends of such research remain unclear. Accordingly, this study aimed to provide an overview of the development of research on GPs over the period of 1999 to 2014.

METHODS

Studies on GPs conducted from 1999 to 2014 were retrieved from PubMed. In this work, co-word, social network analysis, and theme trends analyses were conducted to reveal the knowledge structures and thematic evolution of research on GPs.

RESULTS

The number of conducted studies on GPs increased. However, growth speed slowed down during the past 16 years. A total of 27 high-frequency keywords were identified in 1999 to 2003, and more new and specific high-frequency keywords emerged in the subsequent periods. The dynamic of this field was first divergent and then considered convergent. Specifically, network centralization is 19.77%, 19.09%, and 13.04% in 1999 to 2003, 2004 to 2008 and 2009 to 2014, respectively. The major topics of research on GPs completed from 1999 to 2014 were "physician/family,""attitude of health personnel," and "primary health care," and "general practitioner" communities, and so on.

CONCLUSION

The research themes on GPs are relatively stable at the beginning of the 21(st) century. However, the thematic evolution and research topics of research on GPs are changing dynamically in recent years. Themes related to the roles and competencies of GPs, and the relations between general practitioner and patients/others have become research foci on GPs. In addition, more substantial research especially on comprehensive approaches and holistic modeling, which have been defined in the European Definition of General Practice/Family Medicine, are expected to be accomplished.

The effects of preconception interventions on improving reproductive health and pregnancy outcomes in primary care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Reproductive health and pregnancy outcomes may be improved if the reproductive risk assessment is moved from the antenatal to the preconception period. Primary care has been highlighted as an ideal setting to offer preconception assessment, yet the effectiveness in this setting is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of preconception interventions on improving reproductive health and pregnancy outcomes in primary care.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched from July 1999 to the end of July 2015. Only interventional studies with a comparator were included, analysed and appraised systematically, taking into consideration the similarities and differences of the participants, the nature of interventions and settings.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials were eligible. Preconception interventions involved multifactorial or single reproductive health risk assessment, education and counselling and the intensity ranged from brief, involving a single session within a day to intensive, involving more than one session over several weeks. Five studies recruited women planning a pregnancy. Four studies involved multifactorial risks interventions; two were brief and the others were intensive. Four studies involved single risk intervention, addressing folate or alcohol. There was some evidence that both multifactorial and single risk interventions improved maternal knowledge; self-efficacy and health locus of control; and risk behaviour, irrespective of whether brief or intensive. There was no evidence to support reduced adverse pregnancy outcomes. One study reported no undue anxiety. The quality of the studies was moderate to poor.

CONCLUSION

The evidence from eligible studies is limited to inform future practice in primary care. Nevertheless, this review has highlighted that women who received preconception education and counselling were more likely to have improved knowledge, self-efficacy and health locus of control and risk behaviour. More studies are needed to evaluate the effects on adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Community-Based Family Health History Education: The Role of State Health Agencies in Engaging Medically Underserved Populations in Understanding Genomics and Risk of Chronic Disease

Although family health history (FHH) collection has been recognized as an influential method for assessing a person's risk of chronic disease, studies have shown that people who are low-income, from racial and ethnic minorities, and poorly educated are less likely to collect their FHH or share it with a medical professional. Programs to raise public awareness about the importance of FHH have conventionally targeted patients in primary care clinics or in the general community, but few efforts have been made to coordinate educational efforts across settings. This paper describes a project by the Connecticut Department of Public Health's Genomics Office to disseminate training materials about FHH as broadly as possible, by engaging partners in multiple settings: a local health department, a community health center, and two advocacy organizations that serve minority and immigrant populations. We used a mixed methods program evaluation to examine the efficacy of the FHH program and to assess barriers in integrating it into the groups' regular programming. Our findings highlight how a state health department can promote FHH education among underserved communities.

Preconception risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease

BACKGROUND

Globally, about five per cent of children are born with congenital or genetic disorders. The most common autosomal recessive conditions are thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, with higher carrier rates in specific patient populations. Identifying and counselling couples at genetic risk of the conditions before pregnancy enables them to make fully informed reproductive decisions, with some of these choices not being available if genetic counselling is only offered in an antenatal setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to improve reproductive outcomes in women and their partners who are identified as carriers of thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease in healthcare settings when compared to usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Registers. In addition, we searched for all relevant trials from 1970 (or the date at which the database was first available if after 1970) to date using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), clinical trial databases (National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials Search portal of the World Health Organization, metaRegister of controlled clinical trials), and hand searching of key journals and conference abstract books from 1998 to date (European Journal of Human Genetics, Genetics in Medicine, Journal of Community Genetics). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and guidelines and also contacted subject experts in the field to request any unpublished or other published trials.Date of latest search of the registers: 25 June 2015.Date of latest search of all other sources: 10 December 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised or quasi-randomised control trials (published or unpublished) comparing reproductive outcomes of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease when compared to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 19 papers, describing 13 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found.

MAIN RESULTS

No randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease were found for inclusion in this review, the research evidence for current policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.Information from well-designed, adequately powered, randomised trials is desirable in order to make more robust recommendations for practice. However, such trials must also consider the legal, ethical, and cultural barriers to implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment.

Challenges for providing genetic counselling in Colombian genetic clinics: the viewpoint of the physicians providing genetic consultations

This study explores the provision of clinical genetic services in Colombia, in order to promote improvements in these services. We carried out semi-structured interviews with 20 doctors working in genetic clinics, and we report the challenges in providing genetic counselling that they have identified. Education and training in genetics in Colombian medical schools were described as inadequate, and interviewees found that many of their medical colleagues knew too little to be able to refer appropriately to a genetics service. The doctors interviewed recognised their own limitations, including lack of knowledge, absence of training in communication skills and the strong influence of religious beliefs on the consultations of some colleagues. There may also be communication problems during the consultation: patients may fail to understand the explanations given or to accept the incurable nature of genetic conditions. There are also problems with access, because genetic services are not covered by the health insurance system in Colombia. More training in genetics is required at medical schools in Colombia, at the undergraduate and postgraduate level. There was a consensus that most medical specialities are limited in their knowledge, awareness and understanding of genetics. Furthermore, many medical geneticists did not believe that other health professionals should work as genetic counsellors. These findings may assist in the development of improved genetic counselling services in Colombia and in the establishment of an enhanced academic curriculum of basic and clinical genetics at Colombian universities.

Knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of lynch syndrome: a survey of clinicians in australia

This study assessed Australian clinicians’ knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome for genetic services. A total of 144 oncologists, surgeons, gynaecologists, general practitioners and gastroenterologists from the Australian Medical Association and Clinical Oncology Society responded to a web-based survey. Most respondents demonstrated suboptimal knowledge of Lynch syndrome. Male general practitioners who have been practicing for ≥10 years were less likely to offer genetic referral than specialists, and many clinicians did not recognize that immunohistochemistry testing is not a germline test. Half of all general practitioners did not actually refer patients in the past 12 months, and 30% of them did not feel that their role is to identify patients for genetic referral. The majority of clinicians considered everyone to be responsible for making the initial referral to genetic services, but a small preference was given to oncologists (15%) and general practitioners (13%). Patient information brochures, continuing genetic education programs and referral guidelines were favoured as support for practice. Targeted education interventions should be considered to improve referral. An online family history assessment tool with built-in decision support would be helpful in triaging high-risk individuals for pathology analysis and/or genetic assessment in general practice.

Linking genetic counseling content to short-term outcomes in individuals at elevated breast cancer risk

Few studies have linked actual genetic counseling content to short-term outcomes. Using the Self-regulation Model, the impact of cognitive and affective content in genetic counseling on short-term outcomes was studied in individuals at elevated risk of familial breast-ovarian cancer. Surveys assessed dependent variables: distress, perceived risk, and 6 knowledge measures (Meaning of Positive Test; Meaning of Negative Test; Personal Behavior; Practitioner Knowledge; Mechanisms of Cancer Inheritance; Frequency of Inherited Cancer) measured at pre- and post-counseling. Proportion of participant cognitive and affective and counselor cognitive and affective content during sessions (using LIWC software) were predictors in regressions. Knowledge increased for 5 measures and decreased for Personal Behavior, Distress and Perceived Risk. Controlling for age and education, results were significant/marginally significant for three measures. More counselor content was associated with decreases in knowledge of Personal Behavior. More participant and less counselor affective content was associated with gains in Practitioner Knowledge. More counselor cognitive, and interaction of counselor cognitive and affective content, were associated with higher perceived risk. Genetic counselors dominate the content of counseling sessions. Therefore, their content is tied more closely to short term outcomes than participant content. A lack of patient communication in sessions may pose problems for understanding of complex concepts.

The Value of Family History in Diagnosing Primary Immunodeficiency Disorders

Eliciting proper family medical history is critical in decreasing morbidity and mortality in patients with primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDs). Communities with a common practice of consanguinity have a high rate of PIDs. We are presenting 2 cases where digging deeply into the family medical history resulted in the diagnosis of Omenn syndrome, a possibly fatal entity if not managed in a reasonable period.

What's the harm? Genetic counselor perceptions of adverse effects of genetics service provision by non-genetics professionals

Anecdotal accounts suggest some patients have experienced negative outcomes as a result of receiving genetics services from non-genetics providers, but empirical evidence of these incidents and their outcomes is limited. This study examined genetic counselors' perceptions of the occurrence of such incidents in the state of Minnesota. Twenty-five genetic counselors completed an on-line survey and 20 also participated in a semi-structured telephone interview. The interviewees recalled and described 37 specific incidents they perceived as having negative outcomes for patients and/or their families. Inductive and cross-case analysis revealed common themes including: adverse psychosocial effects, inadequate genetic counseling, genetic testing and screening errors, medical mismanagement, negative shifts in attitudes toward medical providers, and unnecessary use of health care resources. Commonly mentioned strategies for preventing/mitigating negative outcomes included: educational outreach and awareness programs for medical providers and the general public, standardized testing and screening processes, and implementing mechanisms for reporting and addressing adverse events. Additional findings, practice and policy implications, and research recommendations are discussed.

Primary care physician management, referral, and relations with specialists concerning patients at risk for cancer due to family history

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification based on family history is a feature of screening guidelines for a number of cancers and referral guidelines for genetic counseling/testing for cancer risk.

AIMS

Our aim was to describe primary care physician perceptions of their role in managing cancer risk based on family history.

METHODS

Structured interviews were conducted by a medical anthropologist with primary care physicians in 3 settings in 2 north-eastern states. Transcripts were systematically analyzed by a research team to identify major themes expressed by participants.

RESULTS

Forty interviews were conducted from May 2003 through May 2006. Physicians provided a diversity of views on roles in management of cancer risk based on family history, management practices and patient responses to risk information. They also provided a wide range of perspectives on criteria used for referral to specialists, types of specialists referred to and expected management roles for referred patients.

CONCLUSION

Some primary care physicians appeared to make effective use of family history information for cancer risk management, but many in this sample did not. Increased focus on efficient assessment tools based on recognized guidelines, accessible guides to management options, and patient education and decision aids may be useful directions to facilitate broader use of family history information for cancer risk management.

A primary care specialist genetics service: a cluster-randomised factorial trial

BACKGROUND

GPs do not have the confidence to identify patients at increased genetic risk. A specialist primary care clinical genetics service could support GPs with referral and provide local clinics for their patients.

AIM

To test whether primary care genetic-led genetics education improves both non-cancer and cancer referral rates, and primary care-led genetics clinics improve the patient pathway.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cluster-randomised factorial trial in 73 general practices in the south of England.

METHOD

Practices randomised to receive case scenario based seminar (intervention) or not (control), and referred patients a primary (intervention) or secondary (control) care genetic counsellor (GC)-led appointment.

OUTCOME MEASURES

GP referral and clinic attendance rates (primary), appropriate cancer and case scenario referral rates, patient satisfaction, clinic costs, and case management (secondary).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine and 68 referrals made by 36 intervention and 37 control practices respectively. There was a trend towards an overall higher referral rate among educated GPs (referral rate ratio [RRR] 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 2.02; P = 0.161), and they made more appropriate cancer referrals (RRR 2.36, 95% CI = 1.07 to 5.24; P = 0.035). No indication of difference in clinic attendance rates (odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI = 0.43 to 1.95; P = 0.802) or patient satisfaction (P = 0.189). Patients spent 49% less travelling (£3.60 versus £6.62; P<0.001) and took 33% less time (39.7 versus 57.7 minutes; P<0.001) to attend a primary than secondary care appointment; 83% of GC-managed appointments met the 18-week referral to treatment, NHS target.

CONCLUSION

An integrated primary care genetics service both supports GPs in appropriate cancer referral and provides care in the right place by the right person.

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.

The impact of risk information exposure on women's beliefs about direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations

Despite an increase in direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, little is known about how variations in website content might alter consumer behavior. We evaluated the impact of risk information provision on women's attitudes about DTC BRCA testing. We conducted a randomized experiment; women viewed a 'mock' BRCA testing website without [control group (CG)] or with information on the potential risks of DTC testing [RG; framed two ways: unattributed risk (UR) information and risk information presented by experts (ER)]. Seven hundred and sixty-seven women participated; mean age was 37 years, mean education was 15 years, and 79% of subjects were white. Women in the RG had less positive beliefs about DTC testing (mean RG = 23.8, CG = 25.2; p = 0.001), lower intentions to get tested (RG = 2.8, CG = 3.1; p = 0.03), were more likely to prefer clinic-based testing (RG = 5.1, CG = 4.8; p = 0.03) and to report that they had seen enough risk information (RG = 5.3, CG = 4.7; p < 0.001). UR and ER exposure produced similar effects. Effects did not differ for women with or without a personal/family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Exposing women to the potential risks of DTC BRCA testing altered their beliefs, preferences, and intentions. Risk messages appear to be salient to women irrespective of their chance of having a BRCA mutation.

Educational needs of primary care physicians regarding direct-to-consumer genetic testing

To assess the educational needs of North Carolina primary care physicians (PCPs) about direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, surveys were mailed to 2,402 family and internal medicine providers in North Carolina. Out of 382 respondents, 323 (85%) felt unprepared to answer patient questions and 282 (74%) reported wanting to learn about DTC genetic testing. A total of 148 (39%) were aware of DTC genetic testing. Among these, 63 (43%) thought DTC genetic testing was clinically useful. PCPs who felt either unprepared to answer patient questions (OR = 0.354, p = 0.01) or that DTC genetic testing was clinically useful (OR = 5.783, p = 0.00) were more likely to want to learn about DTC genetic testing. PCPs are interested in learning about DTC genetic testing, but are mostly unaware of DTC testing and feel unprepared to help patients with DTC testing results. Familiar and trusted channels that provide the information and tools PCPs need to help answer patient's questions and manage their care should be used when creating educational programs.

GenetiKit: a randomized controlled trial to enhance delivery of genetics services by family physicians

BACKGROUND

Patients look to their family physicians (FPs) for credible information and guidance in making informed choices about genetic testing. FPs are challenged by lack of knowledge and the rapid pace of genetic discovery. There is an urgent need for effective interventions to facilitate integration of genetics into family medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a multi-faceted knowledge translation intervention would improve skills, including referral decisions, confidence in core genetics competencies and knowledge.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trial involving FPs in four communities in Ontario, Canada (two urban and two rural). The intervention consisted of an interactive educational workshop, portfolio of practical clinical genetics tools and knowledge service called Gene Messenger. Outcome measures included appropriate genetics referral decisions in response to 10 breast cancer scenarios, decisional difficulty, self-reported confidence in 11 genetics core competencies, 3 knowledge questions and evaluation of intervention components 6 months afterwards.

RESULTS

Among the one hundred and twenty-five FPs randomized, 80 (64%) completed the study (33 control, 47 intervention). Intervention FPs had significantly higher appropriate referral decision scores [6.4/10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.8-6.9] control, 7.8/10 (95% CI 7.4-8.2) intervention] and overall self-reported confidence on core genetics competencies [37.9/55 (95% CI 35.1-40.7) control, 47.0/55 (95% CI 44.9-49.2) intervention]. Over 90% of FPs wanted to continue receiving Gene Messengers and would recommend them to colleagues. No significant differences were found in decisional difficulty or knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that a complex educational intervention was able to significantly improve practice intent for clinical genetics scenarios found in primary care, as well as confidence in genetics skills.

Primary care physicians' experience with family history: an exploratory qualitative study

PURPOSE

Family history can guide patient care but is underused. Physician experience with family history has been inadequately characterized. The study's purpose was to assess primary care physicians' experiences with family history.

METHODS

A qualitative study using an existential-phenomenological approach. Primary care physicians using an electronic health record to enter family history participated in semistructured interviews. Themes were developed relating to physicians' experiences with collection and documentation of family history. A summary describing each physician's experience was developed and analyzed. The themes and experiences from each primary care physician were synthesized across all participants.

RESULTS

Positive and negative experiences were identified. Positive experience was associated with the perceived usefulness of family history to guide patient care, confidence using family history, practice efficiency, and enhancing the physician-patient relationship. Negative experience was primarily associated with perception that family history had to be collected and process problems, although confusion about the use of family history, perceived inaccuracies and incompleteness of the information provided, time, and potential liability contributed to negative experience. Most primary care physicians had an overall positive experience with family history, although the balance of the positive and negative experiences did not seem related to the degree the electronic health record was used to enter family history.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary care physicians' experience with family history represents the synthesis of tensions between positive and negative experiences relating to collection and use. Understanding the components of the experience could inform redesign of systems to enhance the positive and reduce the negative elements.

Protocol for implementation of family health history collection and decision support into primary care using a computerized family health history system

Background

The CDC's Family History Public Health Initiative encourages adoption and increase awareness of family health history. To meet these goals and develop a personalized medicine implementation science research agenda, the Genomedical Connection is using an implementation research (T3 research) framework to develop and integrate a self-administered computerized family history system with built-in decision support into 2 primary care clinics in North Carolina.

Methods/Design

The family health history system collects a three generation family history on 48 conditions and provides decision support (pedigree and tabular family history, provider recommendation report and patient summary report) for 4 pilot conditions: breast cancer, ovarian cancer, colon cancer, and thrombosis. All adult English-speaking, non-adopted, patients scheduled for well-visits are invited to complete the family health system prior to their appointment. Decision support documents are entered into the medical record and available to provider's prior to the appointment. In order to optimize integration, components were piloted by stakeholders prior to and during implementation. Primary outcomes are change in appropriate testing for hereditary thrombophilia and screening for breast cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer one year after study enrollment. Secondary outcomes include implementation measures related to the benefits and burdens of the family health system and its impact on clinic workflow, patients' risk perception, and intention to change health related behaviors. Outcomes are assessed through chart review, patient surveys at baseline and follow-up, and provider surveys. Clinical validity of the decision support is calculated by comparing its recommendations to those made by a genetic counselor reviewing the same pedigree; and clinical utility is demonstrated through reclassification rates and changes in appropriate screening (the primary outcome).

Discussion

This study integrates a computerized family health history system within the context of a routine well-visit appointment to overcome many of the existing barriers to collection and use of family history information by primary care providers. Results of the implementation process, its acceptability to patients and providers, modifications necessary to optimize the system, and impact on clinical care can serve to guide future implementation projects for both family history and other tools of personalized medicine, such as health risk assessments.

Perceived utility of parent-generated family health history as a health promotion tool in pediatric practice

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to describe how pediatric providers collect and use family health history (FHH) and their perceptions about My Family Health Portrait (MFHP) as a pediatric health promotion and disease prevention tool. STUDY DESIGNL: A random sample of 148 pediatric providers was invited to participate in a semistructured qualitative interview. Transcripts were reviewed by 2 coders, and interrater reliability was determined.

RESULTS

In all, 21 providers were interviewed. All participants collected FHH at new visits and when patients presented with a symptom or complaint. Most providers believed that collecting FHH of chronic disease benefits the pediatric population. Time was the most commonly cited barrier to FHH collection; collecting FHH prior to the office visit was the most frequently cited facilitator. Providers believed that the use of MFHP would improve FHH collection and allow targeted education and preventive recommendations. Respondents also identified logistical and other issues that must be resolved to integrate MFHP into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

This research suggests that pediatric primary care presents many opportunities to collect and discuss FHH and that providers are optimistic about the clinical use of a parent-generated FHH collection tool. Future research should assess parent perspectives about the use of MFHP.

The growing role for genetic counseling in endocrinology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of cancer genetics and genetic testing is expanding rapidly. As our understanding of the hereditary nature of endocrine tumors increases, the role of genetic counseling on the multidisciplinary endocrinology team is becoming more critical. This brief review will highlight the role of the certified genetic counselor in this setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genetic counseling and testing may aid in the management of the endocrine patient through early diagnosis and detection of disease, by optimizing surgical decision-making and improving overall survival. Certified genetic counselors assist the endocrinology team by eliciting a detailed pedigree, determining the appropriate genetic test to order, obtaining informed consent, interpreting complex genetic test results, providing psychosocial and family counseling, and assessing which family members are at risk. Many endocrine tumors can be caused by a variety of different genes and investment in the genetic counseling process likely increases the chance that the correct genetic test is ordered, results are interpreted accurately, and adequate informed consent and counseling is offered.

SUMMARY

The field of endocrine genetics is growing exponentially and testing will likely play an even greater role in surveillance, medical management, and surgical decision-making in the next decade. Genetic counseling both pretesting and posttesting is essential to accurate, cost-efficient care for the endocrine patient and the entire family.

Significant differences among physician specialties in management recommendations of BRCA1 mutation carriers

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has published guidelines for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOCS) management. Little data exist on compliance with these guidelines among different physician specialties. We performed an on-line case-based survey by randomly sampling physicians from five specialties, Family Medicine (FM), Obstetrics and Gynecology (OG), General Surgery (GS), Internal Medicine (IM), and Hematology and Oncology (HO). The physicians (n = 225) were asked to provide HBOCS management of healthy women ages 40-42 in the presence of a familial BRCA1 mutation. For women negative for the BRCA1 mutation, 59% of the physicians recommended appropriate surveillance although with significant differences among specialties; P = 0.01. Using an aggregate screening intensity score, physicians clearly recommended more intense screening for mutation positive than negative women (P < 0.0001), but only 16% of physicians followed NCCN guidelines for BRCA1-positive women. Seventy-six percent of all physicians recommended breast MRI with significant variation among specialties ranging from 62% of FM to 89% of OG (P = 0.0020). Similarly, 63% of physicians recommended prophylactic oophorectomy, with 76 and 78% of GS and OG compared to 38% of IM (P < 0.0001) and 57% recommended prophylactic mastectomy ranging from 84% of HO to 32% of FM (P < 0.0001). Independent of specialty, respondents with BRCA testing experience recommended more intense management than those without; P = 0.021. Management recommendations of BRCA1 mutation carriers are not consistent with NCCN guidelines and vary by medical specialty and genetic testing experience. Targeted education of physicians by specialty is needed, so that optimal management is offered to these high-risk women.

Cystic fibrosis carrier screening in obstetric clinical practice: knowledge, practices, and barriers, a decade after publication of screening guidelines

PURPOSE

Cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier screening guidelines have been in place for almost a decade. The purpose of this study was to determine the current awareness by obstetricians of the existence and content of practice guidelines, the variety in practice regarding CF carrier screening, and the level of knowledge regarding CF genetics and screening result interpretation. We also explored potential barriers to offering screening and whether academic affiliation or type of practice influenced outcome.

METHODS

An online survey program was used to deliver a questionnaire to obstetricians throughout the United States. One hundred fifty-six respondents participated, with 143 answering all questions in the survey.

RESULTS

Although most obstetricians are aware of screening guidelines and have accurate knowledge about CF carrier screening, 12.3% were not aware of carrier screening guidelines, 17.7% were unable to interpret basic results, 16.5% experienced barriers to offering screening, and 43% lacked information regarding carrier rates, screening sensitivity, and residual risk.

CONCLUSION

Most obstetricians offer CF carrier screening and will refer to genetic counseling services at times. However, we identified a deficiency of information in a concerning percentage of practitioners. This deficiency could be improved by targeted and readily accessible educational efforts, especially for obstetricians not affiliated with academia.

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.

Factors influencing consultation to discuss family history of cancer by asymptomatic patients in primary care

Patient self-initiated consultations to discuss family history of cancer in primary care and the factors leading to these consultations have not been investigated. Seventy-one out of 150 asymptomatic patients with a family history of cancer at the Yorkshire Cancer Genetics Service participated in this study. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered. The results show that (1) family cancer events, doctors' advice and reaching the age of cancer-affected relatives were more salient in raising awareness of the added cancer risk due to family history than media and publicity, and knowledge of the genetics services; (2) knowledge of family medical history and its clinical value is not easy to ascertain; (3) the inter-relationships with other causal beliefs are of interest and could provide insights to understand the factors motivating patients to discuss family history or cancer risk; (4) the belief that 'cancer runs in the family' or is 'a family thing' may not be sufficient to heighten perceived cancer risk and motivate patients to seek medical advice; and (5) understanding of the medical concept and clinical value of family history is poor even in this group of patients who initiated the GP consultations. In conclusion, because most primary care practitioners are likely to rely on patient initiated discussion to identify individuals at an increased risk of cancer because of their family history, these findings are therefore important to help doctors and health providers understand the reasons influencing asymptomatic patients to self-refer themselves in primary care and discuss cancer risk in order to provide appropriate care.

The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience

BACKGROUND

Increased availability of genetic testing is changing the primary care role in cancer genetics. The perspective of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their role in support of genetic testing has been explored, but little is known about the expectations of patients or the PCP role once genetic test results are received.

METHODS

Two sets of open-ended semi-structured interviews were completed with patients (N=25) in a cancer genetic programme in Ontario, Canada, within 4 months of receiving genetic test results and 1 year later; written reports of test results were collected.

RESULTS

Patients expected PCPs to play a role in referral for genetic testing; they hoped that PCPs would have sufficient knowledge to appreciate familial risk and supportive attitudes towards genetic testing. Patients had more difficulty in identifying a PCP role following receipt of genetic test results; cancer patients in particular emphasized this as a role for cancer specialists. Still, some patients anticipated an ongoing PCP role comprising risk-appropriate surveillance or reassurance, especially as specialist care diminished. These expectations were complicated by occasional confusion regarding the ongoing care appropriate to genetic test results.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential PCP role in cancer genetics is quite broad. Patients expect PCPs to play a role in risk identification and genetics referral. In addition, some patients anticipated an ongoing role for their PCPs after receiving genetic test results. Sustained efforts will be needed to support PCPs in this expansive role if best use is to be made of investments in cancer genetic services.

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.