Confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks-a European survey in five countries-Part 1.

Western health care systems are facing today increasing movement of genetic knowledge from research labs into clinical practice. This paper reports the results of a survey that addressed the confidence of primary care physicians in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks. The survey was conducted in five countries (France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK). Stratified random samples were drawn from primary care physicians in the five countries representing a sampling frame of 139,579 physicians. Stepwise binary logistic regression procedures were performed to identify the predictor variables for self-reported confidence. Three thousand six hundred eighty-six physicians participated and filled out a self-administered questionnaire. The margin of error for accurate representation of each group of European general practitioners and specialists in the total sample is 2.9% for GP, 2.8% for obstetricians/gynaecologists (OB/GYN) and for paediatricians (PAED) 2.6% (95% confidence level). Confidence in their ability to carry out basic medical genetic tasks is low among participating primary care physicians: 44.2% are not confident, 36.5% somewhat confident, confident or very confident are 19.3%. In each country, those confident/very confident represent less than 33% of the participating physicians. Primary care physicians who report the lowest levels of confidence prove to be those least exposed to medical genetics information and training. Although there are significant differences in the way in which professional education is organised and practice is regulated across European countries, there is a need for a coordinated European effort to improve primary care physicians' background in medical genetics.

Effectiveness of earlier antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care: cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in primary care as a way of facilitating earlier uptake of screening. DESIGN: Partial factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 25 UK general practices from deprived inner city areas. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymised data on all pregnant women attending participating practices during a six month period before randomisation and a seven month period after randomisation. This included 1708 eligible women. INTERVENTION: Practices were randomised to three groups for seven months: parallel testing in general practice (tests for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia offered to both parents when pregnancy was first reported); sequential testing in general practice (tests offered to mothers when pregnancy was first reported, and subsequently to the partners of women who were found to be carriers); and midwife care (tests offered to mothers at first consultation with a midwife). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome (available for all women) was the proportion of eligible women screened before 10 weeks' (70 days') gestation. Secondary outcomes were an offer of screening to women before 10 weeks' gestation, gestational age at testing, mean interval from first visit to the general practice visit to screening, and women's knowledge of the carrier status of their baby's father before 77 days' (11 weeks') gestation. The study was designed to detect a 20% absolute increase in screening uptake. Cluster level analyses were adjusted for age group, parity, ethnic group, primary care organisation, and number of general practitioners per practice. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1708 eligible women. In the midwife care arm, 2% (9/441) of women were screened before 10 weeks' gestation compared with 24% (161/677) in the GP parallel testing arm and 28% (167/590) in the GP sequential testing arm. The estimated adjusted difference between the midwife care and GP parallel testing arms was 16.5% (95% confidence interval 7.1% to 25.8%; P=0.002) and between the midwife care and GP sequential testing arms was 27.8% (14.8% to 40.7%; P<0.001). By 26 weeks' gestation the proportion of women screened across the three trial arms was similar (81%). The proportion of women who knew the carrier status of the baby's father by 11 weeks' gestation was 0% (0/441) in the midwife care arm, 2% (13/677) in the GP parallel testing arm (P=0.003), and 1% (3/590) in the GP sequential testing arm (P=0.374). CONCLUSION: Offering antenatal screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia as part of consultations for pregnancy confirmation in primary care increases the proportion of women screened before 10 weeks' gestation. Even with intervention, however, only a minority of women were screened before 10 weeks. Additional interventions should be considered to achieve testing early in pregnancy for most women wanting such tests so that couples with affected pregnancies have less time pressure to choose options, which may include termination of the pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00677850.

Educational priorities and current involvement in genetic practice: a survey of midwives in the Netherlands, UK and Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: to investigate whether practising midwives are adequately prepared to integrate genetic information into their practice. DESIGN: a cross-sectional, postal, structured questionnaire survey was sent to practising midwives. SETTING: practising midwives from the Netherlands (NL), Sweden (SE) and the United Kingdom (UK). PARTICIPANTS: 1021 replies were received, achieving a response rate of 62%. FINDINGS: 79% (799/1015) of midwives reported attending courses with some 'genetic content' during their initial training. Sixty-eight per cent (533/784) judged this to have been useful for clinical practice. Variation was seen between countries in the amount of genetic content in post-registration training (SE 87%, NL 44%, UK 17%) and most was considered useful. Questions assessing clinical activity identified a current need for genetic knowledge. Midwives described low levels of self-reported confidence both in overtly genetic procedures and in everyday tasks that were underpinned by genetic knowledge. For eight of the 12 procedures, fewer than 20% of midwives considered themselves to be confident. Differences were apparent between countries. Midwives identified psychosocial, screening and risk assessment aspects of genetic education as being important to them, rather than technical aspects or genetic science. CONCLUSIONS: given the low reported confidence with genetic issues in clinical practice, it is essential that this is addressed in terms of the amount, content and targeting of genetic education. This is especially important to ensure the success of national antenatal and baby screening programmes. The results of this study suggest that midwives would welcome further training in genetics, addressing genetic topics most relevant to their clinical practice.

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

PURPOSE: A scale assessing primary care physicians' priorities for genetic education (The Gen-EP scale) was developed and tested in five European countries. The objective of this study was to determine its factor structure, to test scaling assumptions and to determine internal consistency. METHODS: The sample consisted of 3686 practitioners (general practitioners, gyneco-obstetricians, pediatricians) sampled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom. We first determined the factor structure of the Gen-EP scale (30 items) on the whole sample. Scaling assumptions were then tested on each country using multitrait scaling analysis. Internal consistency was assessed across the five countries. RESULTS: Six factors were identified accounting for 63.3% of the variance of the items. They represented the following priorities for genetic education: "Genetics of Common Diseases"; "Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues"; "Approaching Genetic Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice"; "Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations"; "Techniques and Innovation in Genetics" and "Psychosocial and Counseling Issues." In each country, convergent and discriminant validity were satisfactory. Internal-consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were all above the acceptable threshold (0.70). CONCLUSION: The Gen-EP scale could be a helpful instrument in different countries to organize and evaluate the impact of genetic educational programs for primary care providers.

Genetic education and nongenetic health professionals: educational providers and curricula in Europe.

PURPOSE: Advances in and diffusion of genetic technology mean that nongeneticist health professionals have an increasing need to develop and maintain genetic competencies. This has been recognized by patient support groups and the European Commission. As the first phase of the GenEd (Genetic Education for Nongenetic Health Professionals) project, we investigated health professional education at undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing levels in terms of genetic content and delivery. METHODS: Information was collected in the five GenEd partner countries (France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK) by reviewing published curricula and web sites and by directly contacting educational and regulatory organizations. Information was also requested from a further six South and East European collaborators (Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, and Spain). RESULTS: Health professional education and training differed in structure with wide variation in the content and duration of genetic education provided. France and Germany have national undergraduate medical curricula but with minimal overt genetic content, mainly confined to basic science courses. In Sweden, Netherlands, and the UK, the content is largely at the discretion of individual universities. Evidence from the UK, France, and Germany indicates that genetic professionals are influencing the genetic content of medical curricula. In postgraduate training, some specialist regulators have adopted specific genetic educational requirements, but many programs lack any explicit genetics. Within each country many organizations have responsibility for setting, assessing, and delivering medical and midwifery education. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the multiplicity of organizations involved in the provision of genetic education, changing professional education is likely to be challenging. However, it may be that development of a multiprofessional consensus across Europe is achievable. The strategy adopted by the US National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics may be helpful.