BACKGROUND: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is recommended as a first-line investigation for tubal assessment of infertile women. This investigation is not routinely available to GPs. AIM: To explore the perceptions and attitudes of patients and health professionals to open access HSG for the initial management of infertile couples in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: A nested qualitative study using in-depth interviews with GPs, fertility specialists, and infertile couples. SETTING: Northumberland, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and Gateshead. METHOD: Participants were 39 interviewees: 12 GPs, five fertility specialists, and 13 infertile couples (nine interviewed with their partner). RESULTS: Four themes emerged: personal factors; will it benefit patients, GPs, and fertility specialists?; professional factors; does it fit the role of a GP?; local context; do the skills exist in general practice?; and wider context; will it benefit the NHS? GPs who had used open access HSG, felt it was appropriate for general practice and would continue to use the service. All GPs, fertility specialists, and infertile couples who had experienced open access HSG wished the service to remain in place. The main barriers to its uptake were: infrequency with which infertility presents; lack of clarity on perceived responsibilities; difficulty keeping up to date, including assimilating guidelines; low clinical priority; and lack of support in authoritative guidance. CONCLUSION: Providing GPs with open access to HSG would allow a full initial assessment of the infertile couple and refer women with blocked tubes directly to tertiary care. While there is general support for the provision of such a facility, the majority of GPs perceive its use as being by a limited number of GPs who have a special interest in infertility. The study findings can inform future development of infertility services at the interface between primary and secondary/tertiary care.
BACKGROUND: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is recommended as a first-line investigation for tubal assessment of infertile women. This investigation is not routinely available to GPs. AIM: To explore the perceptions and attitudes of patients and health professionals to open access HSG for the initial management of infertile couples in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: A nested qualitative study using in-depth interviews with GPs, fertility specialists, and infertile couples. SETTING: Northumberland, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and Gateshead. METHOD:Participants were 39 interviewees: 12 GPs, five fertility specialists, and 13 infertile couples (nine interviewed with their partner). RESULTS: Four themes emerged: personal factors; will it benefit patients, GPs, and fertility specialists?; professional factors; does it fit the role of a GP?; local context; do the skills exist in general practice?; and wider context; will it benefit the NHS? GPs who had used open access HSG, felt it was appropriate for general practice and would continue to use the service. All GPs, fertility specialists, and infertile couples who had experienced open access HSG wished the service to remain in place. The main barriers to its uptake were: infrequency with which infertility presents; lack of clarity on perceived responsibilities; difficulty keeping up to date, including assimilating guidelines; low clinical priority; and lack of support in authoritative guidance. CONCLUSION: Providing GPs with open access to HSG would allow a full initial assessment of the infertile couple and refer women with blocked tubes directly to tertiary care. While there is general support for the provision of such a facility, the majority of GPs perceive its use as being by a limited number of GPs who have a special interest in infertility. The study findings can inform future development of infertility services at the interface between primary and secondary/tertiary care.
Authors: L Schmidt; B E Holstein; J Boivin; T Tjørnhøj-Thomsen; J Blaabjerg; F Hald; P E Rasmussen; A Nyboe Andersen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Neil C Campbell; Elizabeth Murray; Janet Darbyshire; Jon Emery; Andrew Farmer; Frances Griffiths; Bruce Guthrie; Helen Lester; Phil Wilson; Ann Louise Kinmonth Journal: BMJ Date: 2007-03-03
Authors: Claire Friedemann Smith; Alice C Tompson; Nicholas Jones; Josh Brewin; Elizabeth A Spencer; Clare R Bankhead; Fd Richard Hobbs; Brian D Nicholson Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 5.386