Understanding the barriers and enablers of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care: a qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation synthesis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadaf Qureshi ◽  
Asam Latif ◽  
Laura Condon ◽  
Ralph K Akyea ◽  
Joe Kai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Professional Relationships ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Primary Care Professionals

Introduction: Pharmacogenomic testing can indicate which drugs may have limited therapeutic action or lead to adverse effects, hence guiding rational and safe prescribing. However, in the UK and other countries, there are still significant barriers to implementation of testing in primary care. Objective: This systematic review presents the barriers and enablers to the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care setting. Materials & methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched through to July 2020 for studies that reported primary qualitative data of primary care professionals and patient views. Following screening, data extraction and quality assessment, data synthesis was undertaken using meta-aggregation based on the theoretical domain’s framework (TDF). Confidence in the synthesized findings relating to credibility and dependability was established using CONQual. Eligible papers were categorized into six TDF domains – knowledge; social and professional roles; behavioral regulation; beliefs and consequences; environmental context and resources; and social influences. Results: From 1669 citations, eighteen eligible studies were identified across seven countries, with a sample size of 504 participants including both primary care professionals and patients. From the data, 15 synthesized statements, all with moderate CONQual rating emerged. These categories range from knowledge, awareness among Primary Care Physicians and patients, professional relationships, negative impact of PGx, belief that PGx can reduce adverse drug reactions, clinical evidence, cost–effectiveness, informatics, reporting issues and social issues. Conclusion: Through use of TDF, fifteen synthesized statements provide policymakers with valuable recommendations for the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care. In preparation, policymakers need to consider the introduction of effective educational strategies for both PCPs and patients to raise knowledge, awareness, and engagement. The actual introduction of PGx will require reorganization with decision support tools to aid use of PGx in primary care, with a clear delegation of roles and responsibilities between general professionals and pharmacists supplemented by a local pool of experts. Further policy makers need to address the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics and having appropriate infrastructure supporting testing and interpretation including informatic solutions for utilizing pharmacogenomic results.

How cost-effective is nutrition care delivered in primary healthcare settings? A systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelyn A Barnes ◽  
Zoe Szewczyk ◽  
Jaimon T Kelly ◽  
Katrina L Campbell ◽  
Lauren E Ball
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Nutrition Care ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Context Nutrition care is an effective lifestyle intervention for the treatment and prevention of many noncommunicable diseases. Primary care is a high-value setting in which to provide nutrition care. Objective The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nutrition care interventions provided in primary care settings. Data Sources Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to May 2021. Data Extraction Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guidelines. Randomized trials of nutrition interventions in primary care settings were included in the analysis if incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. The main outcome variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and reported interpretations were used to categorize interventions by the cost-effectiveness plane quadrant. Results Of 6837 articles identified, 10 were included (representing 9 studies). Eight of the 9 included studies found nutrition care in primary care settings to be more costly and more effective than usual care . High study heterogeneity limited further conclusions. Conclusion Nutrition care in primary care settings is effective, though it requires investment; it should, therefore, be considered in primary care planning. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of providing nutrition care in primary care settings. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020201146.

scholarly journals Stigmatizing attitudes of primary care professionals towards people with mental disorders: A systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angel O Rojas Vistorte ◽  
Wagner Silva Ribeiro ◽  
Denisse Jaen ◽  
Miguel R Jorge ◽  
Sara Evans-Lacko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Stigmatizing Attitudes ◽  
Primary Care Professionals

Objective To examine stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders among primary care professionals and to identify potential factors related to stigmatizing attitudes through a systematic review. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Lilacs, IBECS, Index Psicologia, CUMED, MedCarib, Sec. Est. Saúde SP, WHOLIS, Hanseníase, LIS-Localizador de Informação em Saúde, PAHO, CVSO-Regional, and Latindex, through the Virtual Health Library portal ( http://www.bireme.br website) through to June 2017. The articles included in the review were summarized through a narrative synthesis. Results After applying eligibility criteria, 11 articles, out of 19.109 references identified, were included in the review. Primary care physicians do present stigmatizing attitudes towards patients with mental disorders and show more negative attitudes towards patients with schizophrenia than towards those with depression. Older and more experience doctors have more stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental illness compared with younger and less-experienced doctors. Health-care providers who endorse more stigmatizing attitudes towards mental illness were likely to be more pessimistic about the patient’s adherence to treatment. Conclusions Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders are common among physicians in primary care settings, particularly among older and more experienced doctors. Stigmatizing attitudes can act as an important barrier for patients to receive the treatment they need. The primary care physicians feel they need better preparation, training, and information to deal with and to treat mental illness, such as a user friendly and pragmatic classification system that addresses the high prevalence of mental disorders in primary care and community settings.

scholarly journals Dermoscopy for melanoma detection and triage in primary care: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e027529 ◽  
Author(s):  
OT Jones ◽  
LC Jurascheck ◽  
MA van Melle ◽  
S Hickman ◽  
NP Burrows ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Skin Lesions ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Benign Lesions ◽  
Patient Acceptability ◽  
Training Requirements

ObjectiveMost skin lesions first present in primary care, where distinguishing rare melanomas from benign lesions can be challenging. Dermoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy among specialists and is promoted for use by primary care physicians (PCPs). However, when used by untrained clinicians, accuracy may be no better than visual inspection. This study aimed to undertake a systematic review of literature reporting use of dermoscopy to triage suspicious skin lesions in primary care settings, and challenges for implementation.DesignA systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and SCOPUS bibliographic databases from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2017, without language restrictions.Inclusion criteriaStudies including assessment of dermoscopy accuracy, acceptability to patients and PCPs, training requirements, and cost-effectiveness of dermoscopy modes in primary care, including trials, diagnostic accuracy and acceptability studies.Results23 studies met the review criteria, representing 49 769 lesions and 3708 PCPs, all from high-income countries. There was a paucity of studies set truly in primary care and the outcomes measured were diverse. The heterogeneity therefore made meta-analysis unfeasible; the data were synthesised through narrative review. Dermoscopy, with appropriate training, was associated with improved diagnostic accuracy for melanoma and benign lesions, and reduced unnecessary excisions and referrals. Teledermoscopy-based referral systems improved triage accuracy. Only three studies examined cost-effectiveness; hence, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions. Costs, training and time requirements were considered important implementation barriers. Patient satisfaction was seldom assessed. Computer-aided dermoscopy and other technological advances have not yet been tested in primary care.ConclusionsDermoscopy could help PCPs triage suspicious lesions for biopsy, urgent referral or reassurance. However, it will be important to establish further evidence on minimum training requirements to reach competence, as well as the cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability of implementing dermoscopy in primary care.Trial registration numberCRD42018091395.

WikiRecs primary care: developing rapid recommendations for primary care through effective collaboration between systematic review and guideline teams

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X697085
Author(s):  
Trudy Bekkering ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Ton Kuijpers ◽  
Mieke Vermandere ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Urinary Stones ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Review Team ◽  
New Evidence

BackgroundThe WikiRecs evidence summaries and recommendations for clinical practice are developed using trustworthy methods. The process is triggered by studies that may potentially change practice, aiming at implementing new evidence into practice fast.AimTo share our first experiences developing WikiRecs for primary care and to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls of this method.MethodIn March 2017, we started developing WikiRecs for primary health care to speed up the process of making potentially practice-changing evidence in clinical practice. Based on a well-structured question a systematic review team summarises the evidence using the GRADE approach. Subsequently, an international panel of primary care physicians, methodological experts and patients formulates recommendations for clinical practice. The patient representatives are involved as full guideline panel members. The final recommendations and supporting evidence are disseminated using various platforms, including MAGICapp and scientific journals.ResultsWe are developing WikiRecs on two topics: alpha-blockers for urinary stones and supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. We did not face major problems but will reflect on issues we had to solve so far. We anticipate having the first WikiRecs for primary care available at the end of 2017.ConclusionThe WikiRecs process is a promising method — that is still evolving — to rapidly synthesise and bring new evidence into primary care practice, while adhering to high quality standards.

scholarly journals Comparing Hospital and Primary Care Physicians’ Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding Antibiotic Prescribing: A Survey within the Centre Region of Portugal

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 629
Author(s):  
António Teixeira Rodrigues ◽  
João C. F. Nunes ◽  
Marta Estrela ◽  
Adolfo Figueiras ◽  
Fátima Roque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Problem ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Self Medication ◽  
Centre Region ◽  
Attitudes And Knowledge

Background: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide public health problem, leading to longer hospital stays, raising medical costs and mortality levels. As physicians’ attitudes are key factors to antibiotic prescribing, this study sought to explore their differences between primary care and hospital settings. Methods: A survey was conducted between September 2011 and February 2012 in the center region of Portugal in the form of a questionnaire to compare hospital (n = 154) and primary care (n = 421) physicians’ attitudes and knowledge regarding antibiotic prescribing. Results: More than 70% of the attitudes were statistically different (p < 0.05) between hospital physicians (HPs) and primary care physicians (PCPs). When compared to PCPs, HPs showed higher agreement with antibiotic resistances being a public health problem and ascribed more importance to microbiological tests and to the influence of prescription on the development of resistances. On the other hand, PCPs tended to agree more regarding the negative impact of self-medication with antibiotics dispensed without medical prescription and the need for rapid diagnostic tests. Seven out of nine sources of knowledge’s usefulness were statistically different between both settings, with HPs considering most of the knowledge sources to be more useful than PCPs. Conclusions: Besides the efforts made to improve both antibiotic prescribing and use, there are differences in the opinions between physicians working in different settings that might impact the quality of antibiotic prescribing. In the future, these differences must be considered to develop more appropriate interventions.

scholarly journals Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (689) ◽  
pp. e809-e818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Chima ◽  
Jeanette C Reece ◽  
Kristi Milley ◽  
Shakira Milton ◽  
Jennifer G McIntosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Decision Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Support Tools ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making

BackgroundThe diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis.AimTo investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation.Design and settingA systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018.MethodPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper.ResultsOf the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP’s role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow.ConclusioneCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.

scholarly journals Socioeconomic inequalities in primary-care and specialist physician visits: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lena Lueckmann ◽  
Jens Hoebel ◽  
Julia Roick ◽  
Jenny Markert ◽  
Jacob Spallek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Socioeconomic Inequalities ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
General Adult Population ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Background Utilization of primary-care and specialist physicians seems to be associated differently with socioeconomic status (SES). This review aims to summarize and compare the evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in consulting primary-care or specialist physicians in the general adult population in high-income countries. Methods We carried out a systematic search across the most relevant databases (Web of Science, Medline) and included all studies, published since 2004, reporting associations between SES and utilization of primary-care and/or specialist physicians. In total, 57 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Results Many studies found socioeconomic inequalities in physician utilization, but inequalities were more pronounced in visiting specialists than primary-care physicians. The results of the studies varied strongly according to the operationalization of utilization, namely whether a physician was visited (probability) or how often a physician was visited (frequency). For probabilities of visiting primary-care physicians predominantly no association with SES was found, but frequencies of visits were higher in the most disadvantaged. The most disadvantaged often had lower probabilities of visiting specialists, but in many studies no link was found between the number of visits and SES. Conclusion This systematic review emphasizes that inequalities to the detriment of the most deprived is primarily a problem in the probability of visiting specialist physicians. Healthcare policy should focus first off on effective access to specialist physicians in order to tackle inequalities in healthcare. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019123222.

scholarly journals The use, quality and effectiveness of pelvic examination in primary care for the detection of gynaecological cancer: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Williams ◽  
Peter Murchie ◽  
Maggie E Cruickshank ◽  
Christine M Bond ◽  
Christopher D Burton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Diagnostic Delay ◽  
Gynaecological Cancer ◽  
Pelvic Examination ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Cancer Symptoms ◽  
Presenting Symptoms ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

Abstract Background Urgent suspected cancer referral guidelines recommend that women with gynaecological cancer symptoms should have a pelvic examination (PE) prior to referral. We do not know to what extent GPs comply, their competency at PE, or if PE shortens the diagnostic interval. Objectives We conducted a systematic review of the use, quality and effectiveness of PE in primary care for women with suspected gynaecological cancer. Method PRISMA guidelines were followed. Three databases were searched using four terms: PE, primary care, competency and gynaecological cancer. Citation lists of all identified papers were screened independently for eligibility by two reviewers. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Paper quality was assessed using the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Emergent themes and contrasting issues were explored in a narrative ecological synthesis. Main Findings Twenty papers met the inclusion criteria. 52% or less of women with suspicious symptoms had a PE. No papers directly explored GPs’ competence at performing PE. Pre-referral PE was associated with reduced diagnostic delay and earlier stage diagnosis. Ecological synthesis demonstrated a complex interplay between patient and practitioner factors and the environment in which examination is performed. Presenting symptoms are commonly misattributed by patients and practitioners resulting in misdiagnosis and lack of PE. Conclusion We do not know if pre-referral PE leads to better outcomes for patients. PE is often not performed for women with gynaecological cancer symptoms, and evidence that it may result in earlier stage of diagnosis is weak. More research is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document