初级保健专业人员对基于人群的扩大携带者筛查的看法:在线焦点小组研究。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Lieke M van den Heuvel, Anke J Woudstra, Sanne van der Hout, Suze Jans, Tjerk Wiersma, Wybo Dondorp, Erwin Birnie, Phillis Lakeman, Lidewij Henneman, Mirjam Plantinga, Irene M van Langen
{"title":"初级保健专业人员对基于人群的扩大携带者筛查的看法:在线焦点小组研究。","authors":"Lieke M van den Heuvel, Anke J Woudstra, Sanne van der Hout, Suze Jans, Tjerk Wiersma, Wybo Dondorp, Erwin Birnie, Phillis Lakeman, Lidewij Henneman, Mirjam Plantinga, Irene M van Langen","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmad011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) involves screening for multiple recessive diseases offered to all couples considering a pregnancy or during pregnancy. Previous research indicates that in some countries primary care professionals are perceived as suitable providers for ECS. However, little is known about their perspectives. We therefore aimed to explore primary care professionals' views on population-based ECS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four online focus groups with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and 16 community midwives were conducted in the Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings highlight various perspectives on the desirability of population-based ECS. Participants agreed that ECS could enhance reproductive autonomy and thereby prevent suffering of the child and/or parents. However, they also raised several ethical, societal, and psychological concerns, including a tendency towards a perfect society, stigmatization, unequal access to screening and negative psychosocial consequences. Participants believed that provision of population-based ECS would be feasible if prerequisites regarding training and reimbursement for providers would be fulfilled. most GPs considered themselves less suitable or capable of providing ECS, in contrast to midwives who did consider themselves suitable. Nevertheless, participants believed that, if implemented, ECS should be offered in primary care or by public health services rather than as hospital-based specialized care, because they believed a primary care ECS offer increases access in terms of time and location.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While participants believed that an ECS offer would be feasible, they questioned its desirability and priority. Studies on the desirability and feasibility of population-based ECS offered in primary care or public health settings are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324326/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Primary care professionals' views on population-based expanded carrier screening: an online focus group study.\",\"authors\":\"Lieke M van den Heuvel, Anke J Woudstra, Sanne van der Hout, Suze Jans, Tjerk Wiersma, Wybo Dondorp, Erwin Birnie, Phillis Lakeman, Lidewij Henneman, Mirjam Plantinga, Irene M van Langen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fampra/cmad011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) involves screening for multiple recessive diseases offered to all couples considering a pregnancy or during pregnancy. Previous research indicates that in some countries primary care professionals are perceived as suitable providers for ECS. However, little is known about their perspectives. We therefore aimed to explore primary care professionals' views on population-based ECS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four online focus groups with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and 16 community midwives were conducted in the Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings highlight various perspectives on the desirability of population-based ECS. Participants agreed that ECS could enhance reproductive autonomy and thereby prevent suffering of the child and/or parents. However, they also raised several ethical, societal, and psychological concerns, including a tendency towards a perfect society, stigmatization, unequal access to screening and negative psychosocial consequences. Participants believed that provision of population-based ECS would be feasible if prerequisites regarding training and reimbursement for providers would be fulfilled. most GPs considered themselves less suitable or capable of providing ECS, in contrast to midwives who did consider themselves suitable. Nevertheless, participants believed that, if implemented, ECS should be offered in primary care or by public health services rather than as hospital-based specialized care, because they believed a primary care ECS offer increases access in terms of time and location.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While participants believed that an ECS offer would be feasible, they questioned its desirability and priority. Studies on the desirability and feasibility of population-based ECS offered in primary care or public health settings are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324326/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmad011\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmad011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于人群的扩大携带者筛查(ECS)是指为所有考虑怀孕或怀孕期间的夫妇提供多种隐性疾病的筛查。以往的研究表明,在一些国家,初级保健专业人员被认为是 ECS 的合适提供者。然而,人们对他们的观点知之甚少。因此,我们旨在探讨基层医疗专业人员对基于人群的 ECS 的看法:方法:我们在荷兰与 14 名全科医生和 16 名社区助产士进行了四次在线焦点小组讨论:结果:我们的研究结果表明,人们对基于人口的 ECS 的可取性有不同的看法。参与者一致认为,母婴健康服务可以提高生育自主权,从而避免儿童和/或父母遭受痛苦。然而,他们也提出了一些伦理、社会和心理方面的担忧,包括完美社会的趋势、污名化、筛查机会不平等以及负面的社会心理后果。大多数全科医生认为自己不太适合或没有能力提供 ECS,而助产士则认为自己适合。尽管如此,与会者认为,如果实施产科护理,应在基层医疗机构或公共卫生服务机构提供,而不是以医院为基础的专业护理,因为他们认为基层医疗机构提供的产科护理在时间和地点上都更容易获得:尽管参与者认为提供电子病历服务是可行的,但他们对其可取性和优先性提出了质疑。我们需要对在基层医疗机构或公共卫生机构提供以人群为基础的电子病历服务的可取性和可行性进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Primary care professionals' views on population-based expanded carrier screening: an online focus group study.

Background: Population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) involves screening for multiple recessive diseases offered to all couples considering a pregnancy or during pregnancy. Previous research indicates that in some countries primary care professionals are perceived as suitable providers for ECS. However, little is known about their perspectives. We therefore aimed to explore primary care professionals' views on population-based ECS.

Methods: Four online focus groups with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and 16 community midwives were conducted in the Netherlands.

Results: Our findings highlight various perspectives on the desirability of population-based ECS. Participants agreed that ECS could enhance reproductive autonomy and thereby prevent suffering of the child and/or parents. However, they also raised several ethical, societal, and psychological concerns, including a tendency towards a perfect society, stigmatization, unequal access to screening and negative psychosocial consequences. Participants believed that provision of population-based ECS would be feasible if prerequisites regarding training and reimbursement for providers would be fulfilled. most GPs considered themselves less suitable or capable of providing ECS, in contrast to midwives who did consider themselves suitable. Nevertheless, participants believed that, if implemented, ECS should be offered in primary care or by public health services rather than as hospital-based specialized care, because they believed a primary care ECS offer increases access in terms of time and location.

Conclusions: While participants believed that an ECS offer would be feasible, they questioned its desirability and priority. Studies on the desirability and feasibility of population-based ECS offered in primary care or public health settings are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信