Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2001 Oct;51(471):817–821.

Evaluation of the impact of two educational interventions on GP management of familial breast/ovarian cancer cases: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

E Watson 1, A Clements 1, P Yudkin 1, P Rose 1, C Bukach 1, J Mackay 1, A Lucassen 1, J Austoker 1
PMCID: PMC1314127  PMID: 11677705

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that primary care should become more involved in providing genetic services, such as basic risk assessment, to enable patients with a moderate/high risk to be referred and those with a low risk to receive reassurance and advice from their general practitioner (GP). However, GPs currently lack knowledge and confidence in this area. AIM: To investigate the effect of an in-practice educational session and information pack on GP management of familial breast/ovarian cancer cases. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: GP principals in 170 practices in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire. Of the 688 GPs, 426 (62%) participated. METHOD: Practices were randomised either to Group A (receiving an inpractice educational session plus information pack), Group B (receiving an information pack alone), or Group C (receiving neither an educational session nor a pack). The main study outcome was the proportion of GPs making the correct referral decision on at least five out of six family history vignettes. A secondary outcome was GPs' reported confidence in managing patients with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer, measured by a score that was generated by combining responses to four questions. RESULTS: There was a 40% (95% CI = 30-50%, P < 0.001) improvement in the proportion of GPs who made the correct referral decision on at least five out of the six vignettes in Group A (111/140 [79%]) compared with Group C (controls) (63/162 [39%]), and a 42% (95% CI = 31-52%, P < 0.001) improvement in Group B (100/124 [81%]) compared with the control group. There was a trend in reported confidence in the management of individuals with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer from a mean confidence score of 2.3 in Group A to 2.0 in Group B and 1.5 in Group C (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Providing GPs with an information pack significantly improved referral decisions regarding patients with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Although extremely well received, an in-house educational session produced no additional improvements. There were, however, greater levels of reported confidence in the group who received the educational session in addition to the information pack.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (75.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Campbell M. K., Mollison J., Steen N., Grimshaw J. M., Eccles M. Analysis of cluster randomized trials in primary care: a practical approach. Fam Pract. 2000 Apr;17(2):192–196. doi: 10.1093/fampra/17.2.192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Campbell M., Grimshaw J., Steen N. Sample size calculations for cluster randomised trials. Changing Professional Practice in Europe Group (EU BIOMED II Concerted Action). J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Jan;5(1):12–16. doi: 10.1177/135581960000500105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Davis D. A., Thomson M. A., Oxman A. D., Haynes R. B. Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA. 1995 Sep 6;274(9):700–705. doi: 10.1001/jama.274.9.700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Donner A., Birkett N., Buck C. Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1981 Dec;114(6):906–914. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Eccles D. M., Evans D. G., Mackay J. Guidelines for a genetic risk based approach to advising women with a family history of breast cancer. UK Cancer Family Study Group (UKCFSG). J Med Genet. 2000 Mar;37(3):203–209. doi: 10.1136/jmg.37.3.203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fry A., Campbell H., Gudmunsdottir H., Rush R., Porteous M., Gorman D., Cull A. GPs' views on their role in cancer genetics services and current practice. Fam Pract. 1999 Oct;16(5):468–474. doi: 10.1093/fampra/16.5.468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Grol R. Implementing guidelines in general practice care. Qual Health Care. 1992 Sep;1(3):184–191. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.3.184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harris R., Harris H. J. Primary care for patients at genetic risk. BMJ. 1995 Sep 2;311(7005):579–580. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7005.579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kinmonth A. L., Reinhard J., Bobrow M., Pauker S. The new genetics. Implications for clinical services in Britain and the United States. BMJ. 1998 Mar 7;316(7133):767–770. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7133.767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lucassen A., Watson E., Harcourt J., Rose P., O'Grady J. Guidelines for referral to a regional genetics service: GPs respond by referring more appropriate cases. Fam Pract. 2001 Apr;18(2):135–140. doi: 10.1093/fampra/18.2.135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Oakeshott P., Kerry S. M., Williams J. E. Randomized controlled trial of the effect of the Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on general practitioners' referrals for radiographic examination. Br J Gen Pract. 1994 May;44(382):197–200. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Oxman A. D., Thomson M. A., Davis D. A., Haynes R. B. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ. 1995 Nov 15;153(10):1423–1431. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Suchard M. A., Yudkin P., Sinsheimer J. S., Fowler G. H. General practitioners' views on genetic screening for common diseases. Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Jan;49(438):45–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Templeton L., Deehan A., Taylor C., Drummond C., Strang J. Surveying general practitioners: does a low response rate matter? Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Feb;47(415):91–94. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Watson E. K., Shickle D., Qureshi N., Emery J., Austoker J. The 'new genetics' and primary care: GPs' views on their role and their educational needs. Fam Pract. 1999 Aug;16(4):420–425. doi: 10.1093/fampra/16.4.420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Watson E., Austoker J., Lucassen A. A study of GP referrals to a family cancer clinic for breast/ovarian cancer. Fam Pract. 2001 Apr;18(2):131–134. doi: 10.1093/fampra/18.2.131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES