The more you do it, the easier it gets: using behaviour change theory to support health care professionals offering reproductive genetic carrier screening.
Journal
European journal of human genetics : EJHG
ISSN: 1476-5438
Titre abrégé: Eur J Hum Genet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9302235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
received:
03
06
2022
accepted:
25
10
2022
revised:
19
10
2022
medline:
28
4
2023
pubmed:
25
11
2022
entrez:
24
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent advances in genomic sequencing have improved the accessibility of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). As awareness and interest grows, non-genetic health care professionals are increasingly offering RGCS to consumers. We conducted a qualitative interview study informed by behaviour change theory to identify influences on health care professionals considered as 'early adopters' offering RGCS through Mackenzie's Mission, an Australian national research study investigating the implementation of free RGCS to couple's preconception or in early pregnancy. Interviews were deductively analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to examine barriers and enabling factors. In total, we interviewed 31 health care professionals, who were primarily general practitioners (n = 23) offering RGCS through Mackenzie's Mission. Upon analysis, 15 barriers and 44 enablers to implementation were identified and categorised across three health care professional target behaviours 1. Engaging with RGCS, 2. Identifying eligible patients, and 3. Offering RGCS. Whilst all Theoretical Domains Framework domains were present, barriers were predominantly categorised as 'Environmental Context and Resources' e.g., lack of time, followed by 'Knowledge' e.g., lack of understanding about genetics and 'Beliefs about Capabilities' e.g., concern about giving high risk results to patients. Although health care professionals expressed a preference for offering RGCS through a comprehensive and supported model of care, such as Mackenzie's Mission, barriers remain. By understanding what drives current health care professionals' behaviour towards offering RGCS, behaviour change theory provides an avenue to direct future efforts based on evidence and improve service delivery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36424524
doi: 10.1038/s41431-022-01224-5
pii: 10.1038/s41431-022-01224-5
pmc: PMC9686264
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
430-444Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Borry P, Henneman L, Lakeman P, ten Kate LP, Cornel MC, Howard HC. Preconceptional genetic carrier testing and the commercial offer directly-to-consumers. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:972–7.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/der042
pubmed: 21362685
pmcid: 3079469
Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel MC, Van El CG, Forzano F, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:e1–e12.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.271
pubmed: 26980105
pmcid: 4867464
Delatycki MB, Alkuraya F, Archibald A, Castellani C, Cornel M, Grody WW, et al. International perspectives on the implementation of reproductive carrier screening. Prenat Diagn. 2020;40:301–10.
doi: 10.1002/pd.5611
pubmed: 31774570
Lazarin GA, Haque IS. Expanded carrier screening. A review of early implementation and literature. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40:29–34.
doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.11.005
pubmed: 26718446
van der Hout S, Holtkamp KCA, Henneman L, de Wert G, Dondorp WJ. Advantages of expanded universal carrier screening: what is at stake? Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;25:17.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.125
pubmed: 27677414
pmcid: 5159761
Ioannou L, Massie J, Lewis S, Collins V, McClaren B, Delatycki MB. Attitudes and opinions of pregnant women who are not offered cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22:859–65.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.267
pubmed: 24253861
Archibald AD, Hickerton CL, Wake SA, Jaques AM, Cohen J, Metcalfe SA. “It gives them more options”: preferences for preconception genetic carrier screening for fragile X syndrome in primary healthcare. J Community Genet. 2016;7:159–71.
doi: 10.1007/s12687-016-0262-8
pubmed: 26842720
pmcid: 4796042
Archibald AD, Hickerton CL, Jaques AM, Wake S, Cohen J, Metcalfe SA. “It’s about having the choice”: Stakeholder perceptions of population-based genetic carrier screening for fragile X syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;161:48–58.
doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35674
Baars MJH, Henneman L, Ten Kate LP. Preconceptional cystic fibrosis carrier screening: opinions of general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians in The Netherlands. Genet Test. 2004;8:431–6.
doi: 10.1089/gte.2004.8.431
pubmed: 15684876
Cousens NE, Gaff CL, Delatycki MB, Metcalfe SA. Prenatal β-thalassemia carrier screening in Australia: healthcare professionals’ perspectives of clinical practice. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34:246–50.
doi: 10.1002/pd.4297
pubmed: 24338659
Janssens S, Chokoshvili D, Vears D, De Paepe A, Borry P. Attitudes of European geneticists regarding expanded carrier screening. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2017;46:63–71.
doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2016.08.012
pubmed: 27875676
Matar A, Kihlbom U, Hoglund AT. Swedish healthcare providers’ perceptions of preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS)-a qualitative study. J Community Genet. 2016;7:203–14.
doi: 10.1007/s12687-016-0268-2
pubmed: 27225888
pmcid: 4960027
Holtkamp KC, Vos EM, Rigter T, Lakeman P, Henneman L, Cornel MC. Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of genetic carrier screening in a changing landscape. BMC Health Ser Res. 2017;17:146.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2083-9
Schuurmans J, Birnie E, van den Heuvel LM, Plantinga M, Lucassen A, van der Kolk DM, et al. Feasibility of couple-based expanded carrier screening offered by general practitioners. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019;27:691–700.
doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0351-3
pubmed: 30742054
pmcid: 6462008
Best S, Long J, Theodorou T, Hatem S, Lake R, Archibald A, et al. Health practitioners’ perceptions of the barriers and enablers to the implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: a systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41:708–19.
doi: 10.1002/pd.5914
pubmed: 33533079
pmcid: 8252081
Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psych. 2008;57:660–80.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00341.x
Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, O’Connor D, Patey A, Ivers N, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implement Sci. 2017;12:77.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9
pubmed: 28637486
pmcid: 5480145
Kirk EP, Ong R, Boggs K, Hardy T, Righetti S, Kamien B, et al. Gene selection for the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (“Mackenzie’s Mission”). Eur J Hum Genet. 2020.
DeJonckheere M, Vaughn LM. Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Fam Med Community Health. 2019;7:e000057.
doi: 10.1136/fmch-2018-000057
pubmed: 32148704
pmcid: 6910737
Matua GA, Van Der Wal DM. Differentiating between descriptive and interpretive phenomenological research approaches. Nurse Res. 2015;22:22–7.
doi: 10.7748/nr.22.6.22.e1344
pubmed: 26168810
Robinson OC. Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: a theoretical and practical guide. Qual Res Psychol. 2014;11:25–41.
doi: 10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
Michie S, Van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:1–12.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Fram SM. The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. Qual Rep. 2013;18:1.
QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 12. 2018.
Best S, Long JC, Gaff C, Braithwaite J, Taylor N. Investigating the adoption of clinical genomics in Australia. An implementation science case study. Genes. 2021;12.
Michie S, Johnston M. Theories and techniques of behaviour change: Developing a cumulative science of behaviour change. Health. Psychol Rev. 2012;6:1–6.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations: Simon and Schuster; 2010.
Haas MA, Teare H, Prictor M, Ceregra G, Vidgen ME, Bunker D, et al. ‘CTRL’: an online, Dynamic Consent and participant engagement platform working towards solving the complexities of consent in genomic research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021;29:687–98.
doi: 10.1038/s41431-020-00782-w
pubmed: 33408362
pmcid: 8115139
Kuan AS, Chen TJ, Lee WC. Barriers to health care services in migrants and potential strategies to improve accessibility: a qualitative analysis. J Chin Med Assoc. 2020;83:95–101.
doi: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000224
pubmed: 31714441
Al Shamsi H, Almutairi AG, Al Mashrafi S, Al Kalbani T. Implications of language barriers for healthcare: a systematic review. Oman Med J. 2020;35:e122. e
doi: 10.5001/omj.2020.40
pubmed: 32411417
pmcid: 7201401
Metcalfe SA. Carrier screening in preconception consultation in primary care. J Community Genet. 2012;3:193–203.
doi: 10.1007/s12687-011-0071-z
pubmed: 22183783
Van Steijvoort E, Chokoshvili D, W Cannon J, Peeters H, Peeraer K, Matthijs G, et al. Interest in expanded carrier screening among individuals and couples in the general population: systematic review of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26:335–55.
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa001
pubmed: 32099997
Tsianakas V, Calnan M, Atkin K, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. Offering antenatal sickle cell and thalassaemia screening to pregnant women in primary care: a qualitative study of GPs’ experiences. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60:822–8.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp10X532602
pubmed: 21062549
pmcid: 2965967
Janssens S, Chokoshvili D, Vears DF, De Paepe A, Borry P. Pre- and post-testing counseling considerations for the provision of expanded carrier screening: exploration of European geneticists’ views. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18.
French SD, Green SE, O’Connor DA, McKenzie JE, Francis JJ, Michie S, et al. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implement Sci. 2012;7:38.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-38
pubmed: 22531013
pmcid: 3443064
Carey RN, Connell LE, Johnston M, Rothman AJ, de Bruin M, Kelly MP, et al. Behavior change techniques and their mechanisms of action: a synthesis of links described in published intervention literature. Ann Behav Med. 2019;53:693–707.
pubmed: 30304386
Allen D, Hunter MS, Wood S, Beeson T. One Key Question®: first things first in reproductive health. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21:387–92.
doi: 10.1007/s10995-017-2283-2
pubmed: 28220337
Cho D, McGowan ML, Metcalfe J, Sharp RR. Expanded carrier screening in reproductive healthcare: perspectives from genetics professionals. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1725–30.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/det091
pubmed: 23589535
pmcid: 3657126
Bieth E, Nectoux J, Girardet A, Gruchy N, Mittre H, Laurans M, et al. Genetic counseling for cystic fibrosis: a basic model with new challenges. Arch Pediatr. 2020;27:eS30–eS4.
doi: 10.1016/S0929-693X(20)30048-8
pubmed: 32172934
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:2061.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2061