Research RechercheT he psychosocial health of a pregnant woman and her family is a significant predictor of intrapartum, newborn and postpartum outcomes. [1][2][3][4] A critical review of the literature has identified an association between antenatal psychosocial risk factors and the poor postpartum outcomes of woman abuse, child abuse, postpartum depression and couple dysfunction. 5 Clinicians have indicated that a practical tool to help them systematically collect and record prenatal psychosocial information would be helpful. 6 Although specific and often wellvalidated tools are available to predict or detect child abuse, woman abuse or depression, [7][8][9][10] clinicians are unlikely to use them because of time constraints.1 Other forms aid in collecting more comprehensive antenatal psychosocial data, 11-14 but they are not evidence-based, and were developed to predict obstetric or newborn rather than psychosocial outcomes.In contrast, the Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment (ALPHA) form (Appendix 1) was designed to identify antenatal psychosocial risk factors for poor postnatal psychosocial outcomes. It incorporates 15 risk factors found through critical literature review 5 to be associated with woman abuse, child abuse, postpartum depression and couple dysfunction.15 These risk factors are grouped intuitively by topic, with suggested questions, into 4 categories: family factors, maternal factors, substance use and family violence. The ALPHA form has been field-tested by obstetricians, family physicians, midwives and nurses, 15,16 who have found using it to be feasible and useful. 15 Pregnant women appreciate and feel comfortable with the psychosocial enquiry. 15 The ALPHA form was developed as a screening tool to help providers systematically identify areas of psychosocial concern. Once feasibility was established, 15 the next step was to determine whether using it in regular practice would increase the number of concerns identified.We sought to determine whether health care providers using the ALPHA form detected more antenatal psychosocial concerns in their pregnant patients than clinicians practising usual prenatal care. A secondary objective was to determine women's and providers' satisfaction with the ALPHA form. MethodsFour communities in Ontario were chosen as study sites, including urban, suburban and small-town practices, with patients from diverse socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. Family physicians, obstetricians and midwives were approached at rounds We sought to determine whether health care providers using the ALPHA form detected more antenatal psychosocial concerns among pregnant women than providers practising usual prenatal care. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 communities in Ontario. Family physicians, obstetricians and midwives who see at least 10 prenatal patients a year enrolled 5 eligible women each. Providers in the intervention group attended an educational workshop on using the ALPHA form and completed the form with enrolled women. The control grou...

Introduction: Preparing primary care providers for genomic medicine (GM) first requires assessment of their educational needs in order to provide clear, purposeful direction and justify educational activities. More understanding is needed about primary care providers’ perspectives on their role in newer areas of GM and what resources would be helpful in practice. Our objective was to determine family physicians’ (FP) current involvement and confidence in GM, attitudes regarding its clinical value, suggestions for integration of GM into practice, and resources and education required. Methods: A self-complete anonymous questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,000 FPs in Ontario, Canada in September 2012. Results: Adjusted response rate was 26% (361/1,365), mean age was 51, and 53% were male. FPs reported many aspects of traditional GM as part of current practice (eliciting family history: 93%; deciding who to refer to genetics: 94%; but few reported confidence (44%, 32% respectively). Newer areas of GM were not part of most FPs’ current practice and confidence was low (pharmacogenetics: 28% part of practice, 5% confident; direct-to-consumer genetic testing: 14%/2%; whole genome sequencing: 8%/2%). Attitudes were mixed with 59% agreeing that GM would improve patient health outcomes, 41% seeing benefits to genetic testing, but only 36% agreeing it was their responsibility to incorporate GM into practice. Few could identify useful sources of genetic information (22%) or find information about genetic tests (21%). Educational resources participants anticipated would be useful included contact information for local genetics clinics (89%), summaries of genetic disorders (86%), and genetic referral (85%) and testing (86%) criteria. About 58% were interested in learning about new genetic technologies. Most (76%) wanted to learn through in-person teaching (lectures, seminars etc.), 66% wanted contact with a local genetic counselor to answer questions, and 59% were interested in a genetics education website. Conclusion: FPs lack confidence in GM skills needed for practice, particularly in emerging areas of GM. They see their role as making appropriate referrals, are somewhat optimistic about the contribution GM may make to patient care, but express caution about its current clinical benefits. There is a need for evidence-based educational resources integrated into primary care and improved communication with genetic specialists.

This study demonstrated that a complex educational intervention was able to significantly improve practice intent for clinical genetics scenarios found in primary care, as well as confidence in genetics skills.

No abstract

No abstract