Exploring barriers and facilitators of primary care physicians towards optimising statin therapy in patients with hyperlipidaemia in the very high-risk group: a qualitative study in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspectives of primary care physicians with regard to the barriers and facilitators towards optimising statin therapy in patients with hyperlipidaemia in the very high-risk group. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Four polyclinics in a public primary care institution in Singapore. PARTICIPANTS: Seven men and five women working as primary care physicians were recruited for in-depth interviews. RESULTS: The major barriers to statin optimisation identified were patients' lack of knowledge and awareness, patients' fear of side effects, negative external influences on patients, poor doctor-patient relationship, time constraint during consultations, physicians' unfamiliarity with guidelines, low health literacy among the local population and lack of strong national policy. The major facilitators identified were patient education, providing continuity of care, improving electronic medical record systems' capabilities, physician education and public education. CONCLUSION: We identified several important barriers and facilitators of statin therapy optimisation in this study. This information offers insights into the development of a multipronged approach to address barriers across different levels with the aim of optimising statin use, reducing cardiovascular events and improving patient outcomes.

Missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis: Common pitfalls in genetic testing.

Genetic testing has the power to identify individuals with increased predisposition to disease, allowing individuals the opportunity to make informed management, treatment and reproductive decisions. As genomic medicine continues to be integrated into aspects of everyday patient care and the indications for genetic testing continue to expand, genetic services are increasingly being offered by non-genetic clinicians. The current complexities of genetic testing highlight the need to support and ensure non-genetic professionals are adequately equipped with the knowledge and skills to provide services. We describe a series of misdiagnosed/mismanaged cases, highlighting the common pitfalls in genetic testing to identify the knowledge gaps and where education and support is needed. We highlight that education focusing on differential diagnoses, test selection and result interpretation is needed. Collaboration and communication between genetic and non-genetic clinicians and integration of genetic counsellors into different medical settings are important. This will minimise the risks and maximise the benefits of genetic testing, ensuring adverse outcomes are mitigated.

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for navigating breast cancer survivorship care.

BACKGROUND: The predominant oncologist-led model in many countries is unsustainable to meet the needs of a growing cohort of breast cancer survivors (BCS). Despite available alternative models, adoption rates have been poor. To help BCS navigate survivorship care, we aimed to systematically develop a decision aid (DA) to guide their choice of follow-up care model and evaluate its acceptability and usability among BCS and health care providers (HCPs). METHODS: We recruited BCS aged ≥ 21 years who have completed primary treatment and understand English. BCS receiving palliative care or with cognitive impairment were excluded. HCPs who routinely discussed post-treatment care with BCS were purposively sampled based on disciplines. Each participant reviewed the DA during a semi-structured interview using the 'think aloud' approach and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and directed content analysis were used. RESULTS: We conducted three rounds of alpha testing with 15 BCS and 8 HCPs. All BCS found the final DA prototype easy to navigate with sufficient interactivity. The information imbalance favouring the shared care option perceived by 60% of BCS in early rounds was rectified. The length of DA was optimized to be 'just right'. Key revisions made included (1) presenting care options side-by-side to improve perceived information balance, (2) creating dedicated sections explaining HCPs' care roles to address gaps in health system contextual knowledge, and (3) employing a multicriteria decision analysis method for preference clarification exercise to reflect the user's openness towards shared care. Most BCS (73%) found the DA useful for decision-making, and 93% were willing to discuss the DA with their HCPs. Most HCPs (88%) agreed that the DA was a reliable tool and would be easily integrated into routine care. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience highlighted the need to provide contextual information on the health care system for decisions related to care delivery. Developers should address potential variability within the care model and clarify inherent biases, such as low confidence levels in primary care. Future work could expand on the developed DA's informational structure to apply to other care models and leverage artificial intelligence to optimize information delivery.

General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services. DESIGN: A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing. INFORMATION SOURCES: The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes. RESULTS: A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

Implementing a community-based shared care breast cancer survivorship model in Singapore: a qualitative study among primary care practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The adaptability of existing recommendations on shared care implementation to Asian settings is unknown. This qualitative study aims to elicit public- and private-sectors primary care practitioners' (PCPs) perspectives on the sustainable implementation of a shared care model among breast cancer survivors in Singapore. METHODS: Purposive sampling was employed to engage 70 PCPs from SingHealth Polyclinics, National University Polyclinics, National Healthcare Group Polyclinics, and private practice. Eleven focus groups and six in-depth interviews were conducted between June to November 2018. All sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we performed deductive thematic analysis in QSR NVivo 12. RESULTS: PCPs identified low-risk breast cancer survivors who demonstrated clear acceptability of PCPs' involvement in follow-up as suitable candidates for shared care. Engagement with institution stakeholders as early adopters is crucial with adequate support through PCP training, return pathways to oncologists, and survivorship care plans as communication tools. Implementation considerations differed across practices. Selection of participating PCPs could consider seniority and interest for public and private practice, respectively. Proposed adoption incentives included increased renumeration for private PCPs and work recognition for public PCPs. Public PCPs further proposed integrating shared care elements to their existing family medicine clinics. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs perceived shared care favorably as it echoed principles of primary care to provide holistic and well-coordinated care. Contextual factors should be considered when adapting implementation recommendations to Asian settings like Singapore. With limited competitive pressure, the government is then pivotal in empowering primary care participation in survivorship shared care delivery.

How practice setting affects family physicians' views on genetic screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages. OBJECTIVE: To explore FP attitudes, perceived roles, motivators and barriers, towards GS; and explore similarities and differences between private and public sector FPs. METHODS: We developed a semi-structured interview guide using existing literature. We interviewed private and public sector FPs recruited by purposive, convenience and snowballing strategies, by telephone or video to theme saturation. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded for themes by two independent researchers with an adjudicator. RESULTS: Thirty FPs were interviewed (15 private, 15 public). Theme saturation was reached for each group. A total of 12 themes (6 common, 3 from private-practice participants, 3 public-employed participants) emerged. Six common major themes emerged: personal lack of training and experience, roles and relevance of GS to family medicine, reluctance and resistance to adding GS to practice, FP motivations for adoption, patient factors as barrier, and potential solutions. Three themes (all facilitators) were unique to the private group: strong rapport with patients, high practice autonomy, and high patient literacy. Three themes (all barriers) were unique to the public group: lack of control, patients' lower socioeconomic status, and rigid administrative infrastructure. CONCLUSION: FPs are motivated to incorporate GS but need support for implementation. Policy-makers should consider the practice setting when introducing new screening functions. Strategies to change FP behaviours should be sensitive to their sense of autonomy, and the external factors (either as facilitators or as barriers) shaping FP practices in a given clinical setting.

Roles and recommendations from primary care physicians towards managing low-risk breast cancer survivors in a shared-care model with specialists in Singapore-a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is prevalent and has high cure rates. The resultant increase in numbers of breast cancer survivors (BCS) may overwhelm the current oncology workforce in years to come. We postulate that primary care physicians (PCPs) could play an expanded role in comanaging survivors, provided they are given the appropriate tools and training to do so. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of PCPs towards managing BCS in a community-based shared-care programme with oncologists. METHODS: Eleven focus groups and six in-depth interviews were conducted with seventy PCPs recruited by purposive sampling. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded by three independent investigators. Thematic data analysis was performed and the coding process facilitated by NVivo 12. RESULTS: Majority of PCPs reported currently limited roles in managing acute and non-cancer issues, optimizing comorbidities and preventive care. PCPs aspired to expand their role to include cancer surveillance, risk assessment and addressing unmet psychosocial needs. PCPs preferred to harmonize cancer survivorship management of their primary care patients who are also BCS, with defined role distinct from oncologists. Training to understand the care protocol, enhancement of communication skills, confidence and trust were deemed necessary. PCPs proposed selection criteria of BCS and adequacy of their medical information; increased consultation time; contact details and timely access to oncologists (if needed) in the shared-care programme. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs were willing to share the care of BCS with oncologists but recommended role definition, training, clinical protocol, resources and access to oncologist's consultation to optimize the programme implementation.

Practitioners' perspectives on community-based breast cancer survivorship care in Singapore: A focus group study.

With the long-term goal of optimising the delivery of breast cancer survivorship care in Singapore, we conducted a qualitative study to gather in-depth descriptions from community practitioners (general practitioners and community pharmacists) about their perceptions of community-based cancer survivorship care in Singapore. Sixteen participants (11 general practitioners and five community pharmacists) participated in four structured focus group discussions between August and November 2016. The focus group discussions were analysed using deductive content analysis. The majority of community practitioners do not encounter breast cancer survivors in their clinical practices. Perceived barriers to community-based survivorship care include patients' lack of confidence in primary care, financial constraints and lack of empanelment. Most community practitioners concur that the success of community-based survivorship care largely depends on the co-operation and participation of survivors. Survivorship management via standardised care pathways is not fully advocated by practitioners. Survivorship care plans are identified as useful, but they should also incorporate a non-cancer-related medical history and medication list. Community practitioners in Singapore are eager to participate in the delivery of cancer survivorship care. Future studies should develop a community-based care model that involves community practitioners and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of such a care model. The current model of cancer survivorship in Singapore is not sustainable. Differences in healthcare ecosystems, cultures and resources available in an Asian context should be taken into consideration before designing a community-based cancer survivorship program in Singapore.

Perceptions and Barriers of Survivorship Care in Asia: Perceptions From Asian Breast Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: With the long-term goal to optimize post-treatment cancer care in Asia, we conducted a qualitative study to gather in-depth descriptions from multiethnic Asian breast cancer survivors on their perceptions and experiences of cancer survivorship and their perceived barriers to post-treatment follow-up. METHODS: Twenty-four breast cancer survivors in Singapore participated in six structured focus group discussions. The focus group discussions were voice recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Breast cancer survivors were unfamiliar with and disliked the term "survivorship," because it implies that survivors had undergone hardship during their treatment. Cognitive impairment and peripheral neuropathy were physical symptoms that bothered survivors the most, and many indicated that they experienced emotional distress during survivorship, for which they turned to religion and peers as coping strategies. Survivors indicated lack of consultation time and fear of unplanned hospitalization as main barriers to optimal survivorship care. Furthermore, survivors indicated that they preferred receipt of survivorship care at the specialty cancer center. CONCLUSION: Budding survivorship programs in Asia must take survivor perspectives into consideration to ensure that survivorship care is fully optimized within the community.