Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Fok RW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247620 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs worldwide cancer prevalence continues to increase, the challenges facing cancer care are also increasing. Various topics related to deficiencies in cancer care have been discussed repeatedly in the literature. The most frequently stated topics are the unmet psychosocial support needs of cancer patients, difficulties in multidisciplinary teamwork, difficulties in communication between physicians and patients, and issues in palliative care settings. However, there is little research regarding the views of health care providers on these topics. With the aim of gaining abundant information regarding the care of German cancer patients, this study explores the stances of psycho-oncologists, physicians, and nurses regarding the quality of cancer care.Materials and methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) and in different oncological outpatient offices in Hamburg; twenty-five interviews in total were conducted with health care providers. Interviews were semi-structured to gain a broad range of information on cancer care. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke with an inductive, constant comparison approach to identify themes and categorized codes.ResultsThe following five principle themes were identified in the interviews: "psycho-oncological care", "cooperation of health care providers", "palliative care", "health care provider-patient contact", and "coordination and organization of care". Participants seemed satisfied with the overall quality of cancer care in Germany. Nevertheless, the results showed deficiencies regarding communication among different health care providers and between health care providers and patients. Important findings in conjunction with these communication problems were a lack of psycho-oncological support, shortages in the oncology work force, language and cultural barriers, and deficient education in the communication of providers.ConclusionsThe statements of psycho-oncologists, physicians, and nurses on cancer care provide a suitable basis to conduct further focused research on the studied deficiencies in cancer care. In particular, communication in psycho-oncological care, communication within multidisciplinary teams, and health care provider-patient communication should be further explored with the aim of developing new ideas for improvements and thereby enhancing the quality of cancer care.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Developments in enzyme replacement therapy have kindled discussions on adding Pompe disease, characterized by progressive muscle weakness and wasting, to neonatal screening. Pompe disease does not fit traditional screening criteria as it is a broad-spectrum phenotype disorder that may occur in lethal form in early infancy or manifest in less severe forms from infancy to late adulthood. Current screening tests cannot differentiate between these forms. Normally, expanding screening is discussed among experts in advisory bodies. While advisory reports usually mention the procedures and outcome of deliberations, little is known of the importance attached to different arguments and the actual weighing processes involved. In this research we aim to explore the views of a wide range of relevant professionals to gain more insight into the process of weighing pros and cons of neonatal screening for Pompe disease, as an example of the dilemmas involved in screening for broad-spectrum phenotype disorders. METHODS: We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with medical, lab, insurance and screening professionals, and executive staff of patient organisations. They were asked about their first reaction to neonatal screening for Pompe disease, after which benefits and harms and requirements for screening were explored in more detail. RESULTS: Advantages included health gain by timely intervention, avoiding a diagnostic quest, having a reproductive choice and gaining more knowledge about the natural course and treatment. Being prepared was mentioned as an advantage for the later manifesting cases. Disadvantages included treatment costs and uncertainties about its effect, the timing of treatment in later manifesting cases, the psychological burden for the patient-in-waiting and the family. Also the downsides of having prior knowledge as well as having to consider a reproductive option were mentioned as disadvantages. CONCLUSION: When weighing pros and cons, interviewees attach different importance to different arguments, based on personal and professional views. Professionals expect benefits from neonatal screening for Pompe disease, especially for early-onset cases. Some interviewees valued screening in later manifesting cases as well, while stressing the need for adequate support of pre-symptomatic patients and their families. Others considered the psychological burden and uncertainties regarding treatment as reasons not to screen.

Project description:ObjectiveTo elicit women's responses to information about the nature and extent of overdiagnosis in mammography screening (detecting disease that would not present clinically during the woman's lifetime) and explore how awareness of overdiagnosis might influence attitudes and intentions about screening.DesignQualitative study using focus groups that included a presentation explaining overdiagnosis, incorporating different published estimates of its rate (1-10%, 30%, 50%) and information on the mortality benefit of screening, with guided group discussionsSettingSydney, AustraliaParticipantsFifty women aged 40-79 years with no personal history of breast cancer and with varying levels of education and participation in screening.ResultsPrior awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis was minimal. Women generally reacted with surprise, but most came to understand the issue. Responses to overdiagnosis and the different estimates of its magnitude were diverse. The highest estimate (50%) made some women perceive a need for more careful personal decision making about screening. In contrast, the lower and intermediate estimates (1-10% and 30%) had limited impact on attitudes and intentions, with many women remaining committed to screening. For some women, the information raised concerns, not about whether to screen but whether to treat a screen detected cancer or consider alternative approaches (such as watchful waiting). Information preferences varied: many women considered it important to take overdiagnosis into account and make informed choices about whether to have screening, but many wanted to be encouraged to be screened.ConclusionsWomen from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds could comprehend the issue of overdiagnosis in mammography screening, and they generally valued information about it. Effects on screening intentions may depend heavily on the rate of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis will be new and counterintuitive for many people and may influence screening and treatment decisions in unintended ways, underscoring the need for careful communication.