Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Jon Emery a ICRF General Practice Research Group, Division of
Public Health and Primary Health Care, Institute of Health Sciences,
University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, b Cancer
Research Campaign Primary Care Education Research Group, Division of
Public Health and Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, c Department of Primary
Health Care, University of Oxford, d Department of Clinical
Genetics, Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust, Churchill Hospital, Oxford
OX3 7JL, e ICRF Advanced Computation Laboratory, PO Box 123, London WC2A 3PX
Correspondence to: J Emery jon.emery{at}dphpc.ox.ac.uk
Objectives:
To evaluate the potential effect of
computer support on general practitioners' management of familial
breast and ovarian cancer, and to compare the effectiveness of two
different types of computer program.
Design:
Crossover experiment with balanced block design.
Participants:
Of a random sample of 100 general
practitioners from Buckinghamshire who were invited, 41 agreed to
participate. From these, 36 were selected for a fully balanced study.
Interventions:
Doctors managed 18 simulated cases:
6 with computerised decision support system Risk Assessment in
Genetics (RAGs), 6 with Cyrillic (an established pedigree drawing
program designed for clinical geneticists), and 6 with pen and paper.
Main outcome measures:
Number of appropriate
management decisions made (maximum 6), mean time taken to reach a
decision, number of pedigrees accurately drawn (maximum 6). Secondary
measures were method of support preferred for particular aspects of
managing family histories of cancer; importance of specific information on cancer genetics that might be provided by an "ideal computer program."
Results:
RAGs resulted in significantly more
appropriate management decisions (median 6) than either Cyrillic
(median 3) or pen and paper (median 3); median difference between RAGs
and Cyrillic 2.5 (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 3.0; P<0.0001). RAGs also resulted in significantly more accurate pedigrees (median 5) than
both Cyrillic (median 3.5) and pen and paper (median 2); median
difference between RAGs and Cyrillic 1.5 (1.0 to 2.0; P<0.0001). The
time taken to use RAGs (median 178 seconds) was 51 seconds longer per
case (95% confidence interval 36 to 65; P<0.0001) than pen and paper
(median 124 seconds) but was less than Cyrillic (median 203 seconds;
difference 23. (5 to 43; P=0.02)). 33 doctors (92% (78% to 98%))
preferred using RAGs overall. The most important elements of an
"ideal computer program" for genetic advice in primary care were
referral advice, the capacity to create pedigrees, and provision of
evidence and explanations to support advice.
Conclusions:
RAGs could enable general practitioners
to be more effective gatekeepers to genetics services, empowering them
to reassure the majority of patients with a family history of breast
and ovarian cancer who are not at increased genetic risk.
Read all Rapid Responses