Advertisement

Journal of Community Genetics

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

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

  • Irmgard NippertEmail author
  • Hilary J. Harris
  • Claire Julian-Reynier
  • Ulf Kristoffersson
  • Leo P. ten Kate
  • Elizabeth Anionwu
  • Caroline Benjamin
  • Kirsty Challen
  • Jörg Schmidtke
  • R. Peter Nippert
  • Rodney Harris
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Genetic education Genetic services Primary care 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For the patient organisations: The contributions and support of Alastair Kent and Ysbrand Poortman are greatly appreciated. We also appreciate the technical support of Jean-Marc Calefato, Gaelle Santin in France; the contribution and support of Prof. Dr. E. Harms (paediatrician), Prof. Dr. W. Holzgreve (obstetrician/gynaecologist) and Prof. Dr. K. Wahle (general practitioner) in Germany; the contribution and support of Prof. Dr. Martina Cornel (community genetics), Dr. Marieke Baars (clinical geneticist), Dr. Attie Go (gynaecologist), Frans Boonekamp (general practitioner) and Dr. Michiel Weijers (paediatrician) in The Netherlands and the research and administrative support of Prof. Tony Heagerty (Professor of Medicine) and technical support of Daniel Cottam and Christine Waterman in UK.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baars MJ, Henneman L, ten Kate LP (2005) Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynaecologists, and paediatricians: a global problem. Genet med 7(9):605–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamin CM, Anionwu EN, Kristoffersson U, ten Kate LP, Plass AM, Nippert I, Julian-Reynier C, Harris HJ, Schmidtke J, Challen K, Calefato JM, Waterman C, Powell E, Harris R, GenEd Research Group (2009) Educational priorities and current involvement in genetic practice: a survey of midwives in the Netherlands, UK and Sweden. Midwifery 25(5):483–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottorff JL, Blaine S, Carroll JC, Evans J, Nicolson Klimek ML, Meschino W, Ritvo P (2005) The educational needs and professional roles of Canadian physicians and nurses regarding genetic testing and adult onset hereditary disease. Community Genet 8(2):80–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burke S, Martyn M, Stone A, Bennet C, Thomas H, Farndon P (2009) Developing a curriculum statement based on clinical practice: genetics in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 59(559):99–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calefato JM, Nippert I, Harris HJ, Kristofferson U, Schmidtke J, ten Kate LP, Anionwu E, Benjamin C, Challen K, Plass AM, Harris R, Julian-Reynier C (2008) Assessing educational priorities in genetics for GPs and specialists in 5 countries: factor structure of genetic educational priorities (Gen-EP) scale. Genet Med 10(2):99–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll J, Rideout AL, Wilson BJ, Allanson J, Blaine SM, Esplen MJ, Farrell SA, Graham GE, MacKenzie J, Meschino W, Miller F, Prakash P, Summers A, Taylor S (2009) Genetic education for primary care providers—improving attitudes, knowledge, and confidence. Can Family Physician Le médecin de famille canadien 55:e92–e99Google Scholar
  7. Challen K, Harris HJ, Julian-Reynier C, ten Kate LP, Kristofferson U, Nippert I, Schmid-tke J, Benjamin C, Harris R (2005) Genetic education and non-genetic health professionals: educational providers and curricula in Europe. Genet Med 7(5):302–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darzi A. Quality for all: next stage review, Final Report, London: Department of Health, 2008Google Scholar
  9. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L (2006) Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence. JAMA 296(9):1094–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emery J, Watson E, Rose P, Andermann A (1999) A systematic review of the literature exploring the role of primary care in genetic services. Fam Pract 16(4):426–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EuroGentest: Core competences in genetics for health professionals in Europe, source: http://www.eurogentest.org/web/info/public/unit6/core_competences.xhtml, July 2010
  12. Geller G. (1999) Americans’ attitudes toward informed consent for breast cancer susceptibility testing: questions for cross-cultural research. In: Nippert I, Neitzel H, Wolff G (eds.) The new genetics: from research into health care—social and ethical implications for users and providers. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–21Google Scholar
  13. Harris R (1994) Genetic counselling and testing in Europe. J R Coll Physicians Lond 32(4):335–338Google Scholar
  14. Harris R (ed.) (1997) Genetic services in Europe: a comparative study of 31 countries. European Journal of Human Genetics 5 (Suppl 2):1–220Google Scholar
  15. Harris R, Harris HJ (1999) Clinical governance and genetic medicine. Specialist genetic centres and the confidential enquiry into counselling for genetic disorders by non-geneticists (CEGEN). J Med Genet 36:350–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Henriksson K, Kristoffersson U (2006) Education in medical genetics for non-genetic health care providers in Sweden. Community Genet 9(4):240–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holtzman NA, Watson MS (ed.) (1997) Promoting safe and effective genetic testing in the United States. Final report of the task force on genetic testingGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunter A, Wright P, Cappelli M, Kasaboski A, Surh L (1998) Physician knowledge and atti- tudes toward molecular genetic (DNA) testing of their patients. Clin Genet 5(6):447–455Google Scholar
  19. Julian-Reynier C, Nippert I, Calefato JM, Harris HJ, Kristofferson U, Schmidtke J, ten Kate LP, Anionwu E, Benjamin C, Challen K, Plass AM, Harris R (2008) Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners’ educational priorities in European countries. Genet Med 10(2):107–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Korf BR (2002) Integration of genetics into clinical teaching in medical school education. Genet Med 4(6, Suppl):33S–38SGoogle Scholar
  21. Manek N, Allen K. (2009) Changes to GP training, BMJ Careers, July 15, 12–14Google Scholar
  22. Modell B, Harris R, Lande B, Khan M, Darlison M, Petrou M, Old J, Layton M, Var-navides L (2000) Informed choice in genetic screening for thalassaemia during pregnancy: audit from a national confidential inquiry. BMJ 320:337–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nomura K, Yano E, Fukui T (2010) Gender differences in clinical confidence: a nationwide survey of resident physicians in Japan. Acad Med 85:647–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nuffield Trust (2000) Genetics and health. Policy issues for genetic science and their implica- tions for health and health services. Nuffield TrustGoogle Scholar
  25. Plass AM, Baars MJH, Cornel MC, Julian-Reynier C, Nippert I, Harris HJ, Kristofferson U, Schmidtke J, Anionwu E, Benjamin C, Challen K, Harris R, ten Kate LP (2009) Testing the children: do non-genetic health care providers differ in their decision to advise genetic pre-symptomatic testing of minors? A study in five countries in the EU. Genet Test Mol Biomark 13(3):367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Royal College of General Practitioners (2008) A review of GP specialty training in the UK: Interim report for the Department of Health. RCGP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidtke J, Paul Y, Nippert I (2006) Education in medical genetics for physicians: Germany. Community Genet 9(4):235–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smit C, Kent A, Poortman Y. (1996) Biomedical research and patenting: ethic, social, and legal aspects. European Platform for Patients’ Organisations, Science and IndustryGoogle Scholar
  29. Suther S, Goodson P (2003) Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: a systematic review of the literature. Am Coll Med Genetics 5(2):70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irmgard Nippert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hilary J. Harris
    • 2
  • Claire Julian-Reynier
    • 3
  • Ulf Kristoffersson
    • 4
  • Leo P. ten Kate
    • 5
  • Elizabeth Anionwu
    • 6
  • Caroline Benjamin
    • 7
  • Kirsty Challen
    • 2
  • Jörg Schmidtke
    • 8
  • R. Peter Nippert
    • 9
  • Rodney Harris
    • 2
  1. 1.Frauengesundheitsforschung/Institut für HumangenetikUniversitätsklinikum MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.GenEd Coordinating CentreUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.INSERM, UMR379Institut Paoli-CalmettesMarseilleFrance
  4. 4.Department of Clinical GeneticsUniversity HospitalLundSweden
  5. 5.Department of Clinical Genetics, EMGO InstituteVU University Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Faculty of Health and Human SciencesThames Valley UniversityLondonUK
  7. 7.Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation TrustLiverpoolUK
  8. 8.Institut für HumangenetikMedizinische Hochschule HannoverHannoverGermany
  9. 9.Medizinische FakultätWestfälische Wilhelms-UniversitätMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations