Search

Abstract Background The predominant oncologist-led model in many countries is unsustainable to meet the needs of a growing cohort of breast cancer survivors (BCS). Despite available alternative models, adoption rates have been poor. To help BCS navigate survivorship care, we aimed to systematically develop a decision aid (DA) to guide their choice of follow-up care model and evaluate its acceptability and usability among BCS and health care providers (HCPs). Methods We recruited BCS aged ≥ 21 years who have completed primary treatment and understand English. BCS receiving palliative care or with cognitive impairment were excluded. HCPs who routinely discussed post-treatment care with BCS were purposively sampled based on disciplines. Each participant reviewed the DA during a semi-structured interview using the ‘think aloud’ approach and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and directed content analysis were used. Results We conducted three rounds of alpha testing with 15 BCS and 8 HCPs. All BCS found the final DA prototype easy to navigate with sufficient interactivity. The information imbalance favouring the shared care option perceived by 60% of BCS in early rounds was rectified. The length of DA was optimized to be ‘just right’. Key revisions made included (1) presenting care options side-by-side to improve perceived information balance, (2) creating dedicated sections explaining HCPs’ care roles to address gaps in health system contextual knowledge, and (3) employing a multicriteria decision analysis method for preference clarification exercise to reflect the user’s openness towards shared care. Most BCS (73%) found the DA useful for decision-making, and 93% were willing to discuss the DA with their HCPs. Most HCPs (88%) agreed that the DA was a reliable tool and would be easily integrated into routine care. Conclusions Our experience highlighted the need to provide contextual information on the health care system for decisions related to care delivery. Developers should address potential variability within the care model and clarify inherent biases, such as low confidence levels in primary care. Future work could expand on the developed DA’s informational structure to apply to other care models and leverage artificial intelligence to optimize information delivery.

Objectives To explore the perspectives of primary care physicians with regard to the barriers and facilitators towards optimising statin therapy in patients with hyperlipidaemia in the very high-risk group.Design Qualitative descriptive study.Setting Four polyclinics in a public primary care institution in Singapore.Participants Seven men and five women working as primary care physicians were recruited for in-depth interviews.Results The major barriers to statin optimisation identified were patients’ lack of knowledge and awareness, patients’ fear of side effects, negative external influences on patients, poor doctor–patient relationship, time constraint during consultations, physicians’ unfamiliarity with guidelines, low health literacy among the local population and lack of strong national policy. The major facilitators identified were patient education, providing continuity of care, improving electronic medical record systems’ capabilities, physician education and public education.Conclusion We identified several important barriers and facilitators of statin therapy optimisation in this study. This information offers insights into the development of a multipronged approach to address barriers across different levels with the aim of optimising statin use, reducing cardiovascular events and improving patient outcomes.

Objective The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs’ experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.Design A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022.Eligibility criteria The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs’ experience, views and needs on any genetic testing.Information sources The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.Results A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs’ role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs’ knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.Conclusion This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs’ varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

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.