Dataset Information

How is family health history discussed in routine primary healthcare? A qualitative study of archived family doctor consultations.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Family health history underpins genetic medicine. Our study aimed to explore language and patterns of communication relating to family health history observed in interactions between general practitioners (GPs) and their patients within routine primary care consultations.

Design

Secondary analysis of patient and GP routine consultation data (n=252).

Participants

Consultations that included 'family health history' were eligible for inclusion (n=58).

Primary outcomes

A qualitative inductive analysis of the interactions from consultation transcripts.

Results

46/58 conversations about family health history were initiated by the GP. Most discussions around family history lasted for between approximately 1 to 2 min. Patients were invited to share family health history through one of two ways: non-specific enquiry (eg, by asking the patient about 'anything that runs in the family'); or specific enquiry where they were asked if they had a 'strong family history' in relation to a particular condition, for example, breast cancer. Patients often responded to either approach with a simple no, but fuller negative responses also occurred regularly and typically included an account of some kind (eg, explaining family relationships/dynamics which impeded or prevented the accessibility of information).

Conclusions

Family health history is regarded as a genetic test and is embedded in the sociocultural norms of the patient from whom information is being sought. Our findings highlight that it is more complex than asking simply if 'anything' runs in the family. As the collection of family health history is expected to be more routine, it will be important to also consider it from sociocultural perspectives in order to help mitigate any inequities in how family history is collected, and therefore used (or not) in a person's healthcare. Orientating an enquiry away from 'anything' and asking more specific details about particular conditions may help facilitate the dialogue.

SUBMITTER: Filoche S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8493894 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Hong Kong (HK) has pluralistic primary care that is provided by a variety of doctors. The aim of our study was to assess patient-reported outcomes of primary care consultations in HK and whether having a family doctor (FD) made any difference. METHODS: We interviewed by telephone 3148 subjects from 5174 contacted households (response rate 60.8%) randomly selected from the general population of HK about the experience of their last primary care consultations in September 2007 and April 2008. We compared the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-centered process of care in those with a FD, those with other types of regular primary care doctors (ORD) and those without any regular primary care doctor (NRD). PRO included patient enablement, global improvement in health, overall satisfaction, and likelihood of recommending their doctors to family and friends. Patient-centered process of care indicators was explanations about the illness, and address of patient's concerns. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred fifty, 746, and 1157 reported to have FD, ORD, and NRD, respectively. Over 80% of those with FD consulted their usual primary care doctors in the last consultation compared with 27% of those with NRD. Compared with subjects having ORD or NRD, subjects with FD reported being more enabled after the consultation and were more likely to recommend their doctors to family and friends. Subjects with FD and ORD were more likely than those having NRD to report a global improvement in health and satisfaction. FD group was more likely than the other two groups to report receiving an explanation on the diagnosis, nature, and expected course of the illness, and having their concerns addressed. Patient enablement was associated with explanation of diagnosis, nature, and expected course of illness, and address of patient's concerns. CONCLUSION: People with a regular FD were more likely to feel being enabled and to experience patient-centered care in consultations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although real-time mental health specialist video consultations have been proposed as an effective care model for treating patients with mental health conditions in primary care, little is known about their integration into routine practice from the perspective of family physicians. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine the degree to which family physicians advocate that mental health specialist video consultations can be integrated into routine primary care, where most patients with mental health conditions receive treatment. METHODS:In a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted 4 semistructured focus groups and 3 telephonic interviews in a sample of 19 family physicians from urban and rural districts. We conducted a qualitative content analysis applying the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework in a combined bottom-up (data-driven) and top-down strategy for deriving key domains. RESULTS:Family physicians indicated that mental health specialist video consultations are a promising and practical way to address the most pressing challenges in current practice, that is, to increase the accessibility and co-ordination of specialized care. Individual health professional factors were the most frequently discussed topics. Specifically, family physicians valued the anticipated clinical outcomes for patients and the anticipated resources set for the primary care practice as major facilitators (16/19, 84%). However, family physicians raised a concern regarding a lack of facial expressions and physical interaction (19/19, 100%), especially in emergency situations. Therefore, most family physicians considered a viable emergency plan for mental health specialist video consultations that clearly delineates the responsibilities and tasks of both family physicians and mental health specialists to be essential (11/19, 58%). Social, political, and legal factors, as well as guideline factors, were hardly discussed as prerequisites for individual family physicians to integrate mental health specialist video consultations into routine care. To facilitate the implementation of future mental health specialist video consultation models, we compiled a checklist of recommendations that covers (1) buy-in from practices (eg, emphasizing logistical and psychological relief for the practice), (2) the engagement of patients (eg, establishing a trusted patient-provider relationship), (3) the setup and conduct of consultations (eg, reliable emergency plans), and (4) the fostering of collaboration between family physicians and mental health specialists (eg, kick-off meetings to build trust). CONCLUSIONS:By leveraging the primary care practice as a familiar environment for patients, mental health specialist video consultations provide timely specialist support and potentially lead to benefits for patients and more efficient processes of care. Integration should account for the determinants of practice as described by the family physicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00012487; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012487.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with mental disorders are treated by their general practitioner (GP). Innovative technology-based integrated care models (e.g., mental health specialist video consultations) have been proposed to facilitate access to specialist services in primary care settings. While perspectives of patients and providers have been examined, there is little insight into the perspectives of health policy experts on such models. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of health policy experts on (1) current challenges for continuity of care, (2) anticipated benefits and barriers for implementation of mental health specialist video consultations along with (3) practical and regulative preconditions for sustained implementation in primary care.MethodsIn a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with health policy experts representing various stakeholders in the German health care system: health insurances, governmental bodies, clinicians' professional associations, and patient representatives. Following a critical realism approach, we applied a qualitative inductive content analysis to derive key themes from the material.ResultsHealth policy experts saw long waiting times for patients and a lack of collaboration between in- and outpatient mental health services as well as mental health specialists and GPs as main barriers for current continuity of care. Health policy experts also felt that video consultations bear great potential to foster coordinated care between GPs and specialists and ensure timely referral for severely burdened patients. Increased workload for the general practice staff to facilitate video consultations and difficulties in establishing reliable therapeutic alliances between patients and specialists via remote treatment were considered as major barriers. Health policy experts varied significantly in their level of knowledge concerning legal frameworks and regulations pertaining to video consultations. However, the implementation of appropriate reimbursement schemes and sufficient data protection were regarded as the major regulative challenges.ConclusionsHealth policy experts mostly consider mental health specialist video consultations as a promising way to overcome current challenges for the management of patients with mental disorders at the interface between primary and specialist care. To ensure sustained implementation, a multi-stakeholder approach accounting for the perspective of health policy experts, patients, and providers should be followed.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00012487.

Project description:ObjectivesLittle is known about the management of female genital mutilation (FGM) in primary care. There have been significant recent statutory changes relevant to general practitioners (GPs) in England, including a mandatory reporting duty. We undertook a realist synthesis to explore what influences how and when GPs discuss FGM with their patients.SettingPrimary care in England.Data sourcesRealist literature synthesis searching 10 databases with terms: GPs, primary care, obstetrics, gynaecology, midwifery and FGM (UK and worldwide). Citation chasing was used, and relevant grey literature was included, including searching FGM advocacy organisation websites for relevant data. Other potentially relevant literature fields were searched for evidence to inform programme theory development. We included all study designs and papers that presented evidence about factors potentially relevant to considering how, why and in what circumstances GPs feel able to discuss FGM with their patients.Primary outcome measureThis realist review developed programme theory, tested against existing evidence, on what influences GPs actions and reactions to FGM in primary care consultations and where, when and why these influences are activated.Results124 documents were included in the synthesis. Our analysis found that GPs need knowledge and training to help them support their patients with FGM, including who may be affected, what needs they may have and how to talk sensitively about FGM. Access to specialist services and guidance may help them with this role. Reporting requirements may complicate these conversations.ConclusionsThere is a pressing need to develop (and evaluate) training to help GPs meet FGM-affected communities' health needs and to promote the accessibility of primary care. Education and resources should be developed in partnership with community members. The impact of the mandatory reporting requirement and the Enhanced Dataset on healthcare interactions in primary care warrants evaluation.Prospero registration numberCRD42018091996.