Exploring general practitioners' experience of informing women about prenatal screening tests for foetal abnormalities: A qualitative focus group study

Recent developments have made screening tests for foetal abnormalities available earlier in pregnancy and women have a range of testing options accessible to them. It is now recommended that all women, regardless of their age, are provided with information on prenatal screening tests [1, 2]. The provision of information is an essential component in facilitating women's informed decision-making [3‐6]. At a minimum, women need to understand the condition(s) for which the testing is being offered, the characteristics of the test and the implications of testing [4].

Health professionals need to provide women with information on both the benefits and inherent limitations of screening tests in a way that optimises understanding, without increasing their level of anxiety [7‐9]. This is particularly true of tests screening for foetal abnormality where decisions on diagnostic testing and/or termination of an affected pregnancy may arise.

The quality of information women have received has been found to be variable [4], while women have consistently demonstrated low levels of knowledge about prenatal screening for foetal abnormalities [3, 5, 6, 10‐13]. Consequently, there are challenges for all pregnancy care providers as well as implications for practice.

The introduction of screening tests in the first trimester of pregnancy has resulted in extending the role of General Practitioners (GPs). When providing confirmation of pregnancy, GPs are often the first health professional the woman consults. If this is in the first trimester, women are more likely to have all the prenatal test options available and have time to consider the information provided. As a primary health care provider the GP is well positioned to inform women of the increasing range of screening tests available.

Women value quality information that is provided by the health professional in a timely manner [14]. This requires the health professional to have a sound understanding of the relevant issues and be able to communicate this information. While studies have focused on exploring the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals towards prenatal testing [15‐18], the effect on health professionals of providing this information to women has not received much attention. The purpose of this study was to explore GPs' experience of informing women about prenatal genetic screening tests for foetal abnormality.

The study was conducted to inform the development of a decision aid for prenatal testing for foetal abnormalities, as part of a randomised controlled trial called the ADEPT (A DEcision aid for Prenatal Testing) study [ISRCTN22532458] [19, 20].

Focus groups interviews were used in preference to individual interviews as the synergistic effects of a group setting may result in the production of ideas that might not have been uncovered in individual interviews [21]. Purposive sampling [22] was employed to ensure both male and female GPs from rural and metropolitan practices participated, thereby increasing the heterogeneity of experiences and perspectives. Contact details were obtained from the on-line public telephone listings and GPs from targeted geographical areas were invited to participate in the study. GPs were also recruited from a variety of professional medical organisations. The team of investigators was comprised of a midwife (CN), an associate genetic counsellor (SL), a psychologist (BM), a general practitioner (JG) and two epidemiologists (JH and RB).

Informational redundancy was reached following four focus groups and no further groups were conducted in accordance with standard qualitative methodology [22]. The same facilitator (SL) and co-facilitator (CN) conducted all focus groups, using a semi-structured discussion guide to explore GPs' experiences. A literature review and the expertise of the project team informed the content of the question topics. The development of the discussion guide (Appendix) was informed by the method outlined by Greenwood and Parsons [23]. Audio-tapes of the sessions were professionally transcribed and the accuracy of the transcripts was verified using the raw data and field notes.

The analysis involved a constant comparison approach [24], with SL and CN repeatedly reading the transcripts to develop an agreed set of codes. The analysis was also guided by the conceptual qualitative research framework of Miles and Huberman [25]. One of the strengths of this framework lies in the explicitness of its description of qualitative data analysis, which includes the use of highly structured data displays to tease out relationships, synthesise findings and help guide against potential researcher bias. Data analyses were iterative and SL, RB & CN participated in this process to identify and agree upon emergent themes and discuss their face validity. The analysis took place concurrently with data collection, and results from each focus group were used to suggest additional lines of questioning in subsequent focus groups to ensure that divergent points of view would be expressed. The use of multiple coders and analysts and informant feedback are strategies recommended by Miles and Huberman to reduce the potential for researcher bias and increase the validity of the findings [25]. A draft manuscript was reviewed by four GPs who participated in different groups to authenticate the findings as representative of discussions and modify accordingly. In addition, a modified version of the clustered matrices described by Miles and Huberman [25] was used to facilitate analysis within and across groups. A code was used to de-identify responses comprising of a sequence of two digit codes for the group and the participant. Ethics approval was obtained from the Royal College of General Practitioners, Australia (ref NREEC 03-16) to conduct the study. All participants provided written consent to participate in the study.

Two groups were held in metropolitan locations and two in regional settings in Victoria, one of the south-eastern states of Australia, where approximately 63,000 women give birth each year [26]. In Australia the GP's role can vary from, at a minimum, confirming pregnancy and providing referral, to sharing pregnancy care with another provider (midwife, obstetrician) through to providing care in labour and the postnatal period. Prenatal care arrangements vary in different Australian States; in Victoria, women booked to give birth at publicly funded maternity services have access to a second trimester maternal serum screening test free of charge. Women in the public system who are at increased risk of foetal abnormality on the basis of their screening test result or their age (37 years or older by expected due date), are offered a funded diagnostic test at a tertiary hospital. Other screening tests, including nuchal translucency, combined first trimester screening and second trimester foetal anomaly ultrasounds, as well as diagnostic tests are available to all women on a fee for service basis.

In total twenty-seven GPs expressed interest and all participated: 18 female and 9 male. Six themes important in understanding GPs' experiences of informing women about screening tests were identified as common across the four groups. The themes were conceptualised as either intrinsic or extrinsic factors. Intrinsic factors describe the elements within the context of the consultation that impact on GPs. Extrinsic factors describe elements that operate beyond the scope of the consultation and have a broader impact on GPs. To further illustrate these six themes, the roles GPs adopt in response to both intrinsic and extrinsic factors are detailed in Table 1.

The findings of our study expose the considerable impact that informing women of prenatal screening tests for foetal abnormality has on GPs. The identification of intrinsic and extrinsic factors present a framework of describing the observed differences between factors that are contained within the consultation and factors that have a more pervasive impact on the GP. The consistency of the findings across different focus groups underscores the salience of the experience of GPs described. We propose that in order to improve women's capacity to make an informed decision about screening, attention needs to be directed to better support the GP's role.

The impact on GPs that we have described is only partially explained by their lack of knowledge. In particular, responsive professional development activities need to be directed to the complexity of factors impacting on the GP experience. Educational activities that embrace intrinsic factors should include epidemiological content and focus on communicating complex issues like 'risk' and 'uncertainty'[27]. A framework such as the patient-centred clinical method [28] within an interactive learning environment could provide the opportunity for GPs to explore ways to 'find common ground' in decision-making and be less directive in the information they provide.

GPs already work within significant time constraints. Other health professionals have previously reported the intrinsic factor 'time pressures' experienced by GPs in our study when informing women of screening [29, 30]. The number of options for prenatal testing and the availability of earlier tests make extra demands on the GP's already limited time. The lack of time available to discuss prenatal testing is at odds with the increasing importance of the GP's role in informing women of screening. With the utilisation of prenatal screening increasing [31], it is timely to consider how to increase the amount of time allocated to consultations in early pregnancy. One option applicable to the Australian health care system might be to fund these complex discussions as long consultations, which attract a higher Medicare (Australia's publicly-funded universal health care system) rebate.

Extrinsic factors that impact on the GP beyond the scope of the consultation also warrant consideration. Our findings indicate the importance of GPs' values and attitudes to tests, screening and disability, in explaining how they experience their role in informing women. It is important that educational activities acknowledge and embrace the range of values and attitudes that exist. It may also be beneficial to consider creating forums for peer discussions about challenging experiences.

Even in a group practice, GPs often function in an isolated manner with limited opportunity to discuss issues relating to consultations. For example, during one focus group a GP revealed a professional concern to the group that the GP had not talked about previously to anyone. In light of the difficulties experienced by GPs in this study, a mechanism for GPs to share and reflect on their experiences may prove beneficial. For instance, the experience of genetic counsellors promote the benefit of 'supervision' [32], supporting the professional and providing a non-threatening environment to discuss psychosocial aspects of consultations.

The purpose of using a qualitative design to address this research question was to document the range of GP experiences to facilitate an in depth analysis of issues in the hope that these finding will make a valuable contribution to achieving a better understanding of GPs' experience of screening. However, only quantitative studies can unpack the degree to which these experiences and beliefs are endorsed.

This study provides a lens through which to view complex primary health consultations. Facilitating women's informed decision-making regarding prenatal screening tests requires much more from the GP than the provision of appropriate information under significant time constraints; moral dimensions also exert an influence.

An understanding of epidemiological language and communication skills is needed by GPs to assist them in providing women with meaningful information. However, it is important that the scope of future educational programs is broader than solely providing GPs with information and education. Consideration of GPs' values and attitudes may well serve to make educational resources more appropriate, relevant and supportive. Educational activities that fail to explore attitudes and values of participants to disability, screening and termination of pregnancy may be considered fundamentally flawed.

When I say the words "prenatal testing for Down syndrome", what is the first thing that comes into your mind?

Generally, how much do you think GPs know about prenatal testing?

How often does prenatal testing come up as a topic for discussion during your consultations with pregnant women?

Do you raise the issue of prenatal testing with pregnant women or do they tend to bring it up?

How do you go about discussing prenatal testing with pregnant women?

What questions do women commonly ask you about prenatal testing?

How much time do you spend in discussing prenatal testing with women?

Tell me about your recent experiences discussing prenatal testing with your patients.

What do you find most difficult about discussing prenatal testing?

What are the key points about prenatal testing that you think women need to understand in order to make a decision about what is best for them?

What resources do you use to discuss prenatal testing and how helpful are they?

Are there other resources that you use for other health related matters that you commonly use that you find useful?

When do you think would be the best time to discuss prenatal testing and hand out a decision aid?

Are there any other issues that you would like to raise?