Literature DB >> 27535332

Primary care professionals' perceptions of using a short family history questionnaire.

Shenaz Ahmed1, Judith Hayward2, Mushtaq Ahmed2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Improving access for relatives at-risk of genetic conditions by building referral systems from primary care to genetic services is well recognised.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore primary care professionals' (PCPs) views about using a short, seven-item family history questionnaire (S-FHQ) as an intervention for identifying at-risk relatives of patients with a genetic condition in routine primary care for referral to genetic services.
METHOD: This qualitative study was conducted in the UK in 2013-14. Focus groups were held with 21 PCPs. The normalisation process theory (NPT) was used during analysis as the theoretical lens for exploring potential implementation and sustainability of the intervention.
RESULTS: In principle, participants were supportive of the S-FHQ. They initially expressed enthusiasm for the S-FHQ and identified benefits of its use. However, in discussions about its use in practice, they raised concerns about their expertise to deliver the intervention, implications for their workload, potential duplication with existing roles and services in secondary care, the ethical implications of its use in routine care and its acceptability to patients.
CONCLUSION: This study shows why even a short family history questionnaire, as an intervention for identifying at-risk relatives, is unlikely to be implemented by primary care professionals.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Family history; genetics; normalisation process theory.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27535332     DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmw080

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  6 in total

1.  Genomics in general practice: Generation Genome.

Authors:  Sarah C Hillman; Jeremy Dale
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Physicians' strategies for using family history data: having the data is not the same as using the data.

Authors:  Peter Taber; Parveen Ghani; Joshua D Schiffman; Wendy Kohlmann; Rachel Hess; Valli Chidambaram; Kensaku Kawamoto; Rosalie G Waller; Damian Borbolla; Guilherme Del Fiol; Charlene Weir
Journal:  JAMIA Open       Date:  2020-10-08

Review 3.  The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review.

Authors:  Nick Dragojlovic; Kennedy Borle; Nicola Kopac; Ursula Ellis; Patricia Birch; Shelin Adam; Jan M Friedman; Amy Nisselle; Alison M Elliott; Larry D Lynd
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Carl R May; Amanda Cummings; Melissa Girling; Mike Bracher; Frances S Mair; Christine M May; Elizabeth Murray; Michelle Myall; Tim Rapley; Tracy Finch
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 7.327

Review 5.  Personalized Medicine Implementation with Non-traditional Data Sources: A Conceptual Framework and Survey of the Literature.

Authors:  Casey Overby Taylor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2019-08-16

6.  Comparison of a Focused Family Cancer History Questionnaire to Family History Documentation in the Electronic Medical Record.

Authors:  Kristin Clift; Sarah Macklin-Mantia; Margaret Barnhorst; Lindsey Millares; Zacharay King; Anjali Agarwal; Richard John Presutti
Journal:  J Prim Care Community Health       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.