May direct-to-consumer genetic testing have an impact on general practitioners' daily practice? a cross-sectional study of patients' intentions towards this approach.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) offers individuals access to information on their probable risks of suffering from a wide range of chronic diseases. General practitioners (GPs) will probably play a major role in supporting its use, but patients' perception of DTCGT remain unclear. This study aimed to describe those attitudes and expectations and how they might affect GPs' daily practices. METHODS: In 2018-2019, a study related to the use of DTCGT for preventive care in general medicine was conducted among patients in Switzerland's French-speaking areas. Data were collected in the waiting room using a self-administrated questionnaire about patients' interest in DTCGT and what their attitudes might be if testing revealed an elevated risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, or Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: About 40% of the 929 participating (participation rate about 80%) patients had heard about DTCGT and, once the test had been explained, 43% reported that they would be interested in being tested. If that testing suggested an elevated risk of disease, the majority of patients reported that they would change their lifestyle (65%-81%, depending on the disease), request more examinations (63%-77%), and expect changes in their GP's follow-up (48%-59%). Personal characteristics such as sex, age, urbanity, marital status, and perceived health were factors predictive of patients' attitudes. CONCLUSION: Findings indicated that the generalization of DTCGT might affect GPs' daily practices in terms of workload and knowledge about this approach. However, this result must be qualified by the fact that it is based on hypothetical situations.

Médecine personnalisée et prévention des maladies chroniques : l'attitude des médecins généralistes.

OBJECTIVES: In a context of future generalization of access to genetic risk profiles, general practitioners (GP) will have a major role to play. The objective of this study was to understand their attitude towards this approach and the potential consequences on their practice. METHODS: In 2018, the University Center of General Medicine and Public Health of Lausanne, the Department of Primary Care Medicine of the University Hospitals of Geneva, and the Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lausanne set up a study with patients and general practitioners concerning the access to genetic risk profiles. The GPs attitude, the subject of this study, was explored using the two-round Delphi consensus method. 120 interns and senior clinicians responded to 24 statements. RESULTS: A consensus was reached for 80% of the statements. The GP’s significant role in terms of access to genetic profiles became evident, even if their position seems conditioned by their position as front-line health workers, and doubts remain as to the impact of this process in guiding their practice. The need for training was widely emphasized as well as the possibility multidisciplinary support and management. There was also a consensus for the need of a legislative framework for these practices. CONCLUSION: This study has underlined the importance of anticipating the needs in developing an advanced and evolving training and information program for GPs in the domain of genomic medicine in light of the prevention activities that could result.

[Personalized medicine and chronic disease prevention: Needs, attitudes and expectations regarding in general practice]. / Médecine personnalisée et prévention des maladies chroniques - Besoins, perceptions et attentes des patients et des médecins généralistes.

The ambition of personalized medicine now also concerns the prevention of chronic diseases, based on genetic risk profiles. The objective of this project was to describe the perception and attitudes of patients and general practitioners (GP) on this issue, in order to consider the consequences on the health system. The study included two axes, patients (questionnaire survey) and GPs (consensus study using the Delphi method), preceded by a qualitative exploratory phase. The study showed that genetic screening for disease risk factors was not a priority, either for patients or for GPs. On the other hand, the role of the GP in the use of these tests will probably be predominant. This implies the need for training and availability of up-to-date information.

L'ambition de la médecine personnalisée (MP) concerne désormais aussi la prévention des maladies chroniques en se basant sur les profils génétiques de risque. L'objectif de ce projet était de connaître la perception et les attentes des patients et des médecins généralistes (MG) sur cette question, pour envisager les conséquences sur le système de santé. L'étude comprenait deux axes, patients (enquête par questionnaire) et MG (étude de consensus par méthode Delphi), précédés d'une phase exploratoire qualitative. Elle a montré que le dépistage génétique des facteurs de risque aux maladies ne constituait pas une priorité, ni pour les patients, ni pour les MG. En revanche, la place du MG autour de l'utilisation de ces tests sera probablement prépondérante. Cela implique la nécessité de formations et la disponibilité d'informations à jour.

The fourth edition of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment Forum: highlights and outcomes.

The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) organizes an annual Forum with stakeholders to receive feedback on its activities, processes, and outputs produced. The fourth edition of the EUnetHTA Forum brought together representatives of HTA bodies, patient organizations, healthcare professionals (HCPs), academia, payers, regulators, and industry. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the highlights presented at the 2019 EUnetHTA Forum, reporting the main items and themes discussed in the plenary panel and breakout sessions. The leading topic was the concept of unmet medical need seen from different stakeholders' perspectives. Breakout sessions covered the joint production of assessment reports and engagement with payers, patients, and HCPs. Synergies, pragmatism, and inclusiveness across Member States and stakeholders were emphasized as leading factors to put in place a collaboration that serves the interest of patients and public health in a truly European spirit.

[Facing chronic depression in family practice]. / La médecine de famille face à la dépression chronique.

This study focuses on the management of chronic depression at the general practitioner's office and the collaboration between general practitioner (GP)-psychiatrist. Our study's highlights two different situations: patients able to verbalize their psychological suffering and who can be directly referred to the psychiatrist and patients expressing their psychological suffering mainly by physical symptoms. GPs consider they first have to work with their patient to help them connect their somatic symptoms and their psychological suffering, which will allow them to refer their patient to the psychiatrist. If this work does not succeed, the GP remains at the forefront of medical care. Long-term support continues, where the GP sometimes ends up giving up on curing and focusing on the doctor/patient relationship.

Cette étude s'intéresse à la prise en charge de la dépression chronique au cabinet du médecin de famille (MF) et à la collaboration MF-psychiatre. La pratique des MF de notre étude met en évidence deux situations différentes : les patients capables de verbaliser leur souffrance psychique et pouvant être directement référés au psychiatre et ceux exprimant leur souffrance psychique essentiellement par des symptômes physiques. Un travail de liaison psychique peut aider ces derniers à mettre en lien leurs symptômes somatiques et leur souffrance psychique et permettre de les référer au psychiatre. Si ce travail n'aboutit pas, le MF reste au premier plan de la prise en charge médicale. Un accompagnement sur le long terme se poursuit, où le MF en vient parfois à renoncer à guérir et à se concentrer sur la relation médecin-patient.

[The challenges of collaboration between general practitioners and psychiatrists.] / Les enjeux de la collaboration entre médecins généralistes et psychiatres.

The collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and psychiatrists in the management of chronic depression is considered as necessary but found suboptimal in the literature. The present qualitative study aims to better understand the factors influencing the decision to refer a patient with chronic depression to a psychiatrist. In order to do so, we conducted three focus groups with GPs in the French speaking part of Switzerland. The focus groups were recorded and transcribed, then coded by three members of the pluridisciplinary research team, using the software MaxQDA.We show that GPs carry out an implicit classification process of the patients, parting those who are “good cases” for the psychiatrist from those who express their suffering only by the body. The latter will only be treated at the GP’s practice. We argue that such a classification may therefore produce unequal access to psychotherapy.We identify several reasons for GPs to refer patients with chronic depression. These reasons rarely relate to the acknowledgement of a specific expertise of the psychiatrist in the management of chronic depression. It also appears that GPs perceive themselves as “specialists of the relationship”, which they consider central to the management of chronic depression. In addition, some GPs have negative representations of psychiatrists. These factors suggest the existence of issues around professional boundaries, which can work against collaboration.In conclusion, a clarification of the specificities of the GPs and the psychiatrists – through training and interprofessional meetings – would help reduce the negative representations of GPs about psychiatrists and promote collaboration, thus facilitating the referral of patients with chronic depression to the psychiatrist.

CMOS platform for atomic-scale device fabrication.

Controlled atomic scale fabrication based on scanning probe patterning or surface assembly typically involves a complex process flow, stringent requirements for an ultra-high vacuum environment, long fabrication times and, consequently, limited throughput and device yield. We demonstrate a device platform that overcomes these limitations by integrating scanning-probe based dopant device fabrication with a CMOS-compatible process flow. Silicon on insulator substrates are used featuring a reconstructed Si(001):H surface that is protected by a capping chip and has pre-implanted contacts ready for scanning tunneling microscope (STM) patterning. Processing in ultra-high vacuum is thereby reduced to a few critical steps. Subsequent reintegration of the samples into the CMOS process flow opens the door to successful application of STM fabricated dopant devices in more complex device architectures. Full functionality of this approach is demonstrated with magnetotransport measurements on degenerately doped STM patterned Si:P nanowires up to room temperature.

Multimorbidity: can general practitioners identify the health conditions most important to their patients? Results from a national cross-sectional study in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Faced with patients suffering from more than one chronic condition, or multimorbidity, general practitioners (GPs) must establish diagnostic and treatment priorities. Patients also set their own priorities to handle the everyday burdens associated with their multimorbidity and these may be different from the priorities established by their GP. A shared patient-GP agenda, driven by knowledge of each other's priorities, would seem central to managing patients with multimorbidity. We evaluated GPs' ability to identify the health condition most important to their patients. METHODS: Data on 888 patients were collected as part of a cross-sectional Swiss study on multimorbidity in family medicine. For the main analyses on patients-GP agreement, data from 572 of these patients could be included. GPs were asked to identify the two conditions which their patient considered most important, and we tested whether either of them agreed with the condition mentioned as most important by the patient. In the main analysis, we studied the agreement rate between GPs and patients by grouping items medically-related into 46 groups of conditions. Socio-demographic and clinical variables were fitted into univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: In 54.9% of cases, GPs were able to identify the health condition most important to the patient. In the multivariate model, the only variable significantly associated with patient-GP agreement was the number of chronic conditions: the higher the number of conditions, the less likely the agreement. CONCLUSION: GPs were able to correctly identify the health condition most important to their patients in half of the cases. It therefore seems important that GPs learn how to better adapt treatment targets and priorities by taking patients' perspectives into account.