Search

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.

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 α) 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.

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 Nationa