Dataset Information

May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) offers individuals access to information on their probable risks of suffering from a wide range of chronic diseases. General practitioners (GPs) will probably play a major role in supporting its use, but patients' perception of DTCGT remain unclear. This study aimed to describe those attitudes and expectations and how they might affect GPs' daily practices.

Methods

In 2018-2019, a study related to the use of DTCGT for preventive care in general medicine was conducted among patients in Switzerland's French-speaking areas. Data were collected in the waiting room using a self-administrated questionnaire about patients' interest in DTCGT and what their attitudes might be if testing revealed an elevated risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, or Alzheimer's disease.

Results

About 40% of the 929 participating (participation rate about 80%) patients had heard about DTCGT and, once the test had been explained, 43% reported that they would be interested in being tested. If that testing suggested an elevated risk of disease, the majority of patients reported that they would change their lifestyle (65%-81%, depending on the disease), request more examinations (63%-77%), and expect changes in their GP's follow-up (48%-59%). Personal characteristics such as sex, age, urbanity, marital status, and perceived health were factors predictive of patients' attitudes.

Conclusion

Findings indicated that the generalization of DTCGT might affect GPs' daily practices in terms of workload and knowledge about this approach. However, this result must be qualified by the fact that it is based on hypothetical situations.

SUBMITTER: Cohidon C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8077756 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

Project description:ObjectiveThere has been an increase in testing of vitamins in patients in general practice, often based on irrational indications or for non-specific symptoms, causing increasing healthcare expenditures and medicalisation of patients. So far, there is little evidence of effective strategies to reduce this overtesting in general practice. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for reducing the number of (unnecessary) vitamin D and B12 laboratory tests ordered.Design and settingThis qualitative study, based on a grounded theory design, used semistructured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) and patients from two primary care networks (147 GPs, 195?000 patients). These networks participated in the Reducing Vitamin Testing in Primary Care Practice (REVERT) study, a clustered randomized trial comparing two de-implementation strategies to reduce test ordering in primary care in the Netherlands.ParticipantsTwenty-one GPs, with a maximum of 1 GP per practice who took part in the REVERT study, and 22 patients (who were invited by their GP during vitamin-related consultations) were recruited, from which 20 GPs and 19 patients agreed to participate in this study.ResultsThe most important factor hampering vitamin-test reduction programmes is the mismatch between patients and medical professionals regarding the presumed appropriate indications for testing for vitamin D and B12. In contrast, the most important facilitator for vitamin-test reduction may be updating GPs' knowledge about test indications and their awareness of their own testing behaviour.ConclusionTo achieve a sustainable reduction in vitamin testing, guidelines with clear and uniform recommendations on evidence-based indications for vitamin testing, combined with regular (individual) feedback on test-ordering behaviour, are needed. Moreover, the general public needs access to clear and reliable information on vitamin testing. Further research is required to measure the effect of these strategies on the number of vitamin test requests.Trial registration numberWAG/mb/16/039555.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying essential competencies in end-of-life care, as well as general practitioners' (GPs) confidence in these competencies, is essential to guide training and quality improvement efforts in this domain.AimTo determine which competencies in end-of-life care are considered important by GPs, to assess GPs' confidence in these competencies in a European context and their reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist.Design and settingCross-sectional postal survey involving a stratified random sample of 2000 GPs in Switzerland in 2014.MethodSurvey development was informed by a previous qualitative exploration of relevant end-of-life GP competencies. Main outcome measures were GPs' assessment of the importance of and confidence in 18 attributes of end-of-life care competencies, and reasons for transferring care of terminally-ill patients to a specialist. GP characteristics associated with main outcome measures were tested using multivariate regression models.ResultsThe response rate was 31%. Ninety-nine percent of GPs considered the recognition and treatment of pain as important, 86% felt confident about it. Few GPs felt confident in cultural (16%), spiritual (38%) and legal end-of-life competencies such as responding to patients seeking assisted suicide (35%) although more than half of the respondents regarded these competencies as important. Most frequent reasons to refer terminally ill patients to a specialist were lack of time (30%), better training of specialists (23%) and end-of-life care being incompatible with other duties (19%). In multiple regression analyses, confidence in end-of-life care was positively associated with GPs' age, practice size, home visits and palliative training.ConclusionsGPs considered non-somatic competencies (such as spiritual, cultural, ethical and legal aspects) nearly as important as pain and symptom control. Yet, few GPs felt confident in these non-somatic competencies. These findings should inform training and quality improvement efforts in this domain, in particular for younger, less experienced GPs.