In the last decade, genomic medicine education initiatives have surfaced across the spectrum of physician training in order to help address a gap in genomic medicine preparedness among physicians. The approaches are diverse and stem from the belief that 21st century physicians must be proficient in genomic medicine applications as they will be leaders in the precision medicine movement. We conducted a review of literature in genomic medicine education and training for medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing physicians with articles published between June 2015 and January 2018 to gain a picture of the current state of genomic medicine education with a focus on the United States. We found evidence of progress in the development of new and innovative educational programs and other resources aimed at increasing physician knowledge and readiness. Three overarching educational approach themes emerged, including immersive and experiential learning; interdisciplinary and interprofessional education; and electronic- and web-based approaches. This review is not exhaustive, nevertheless, it may inform future directions and improvements for genomic medicine education. Important next-steps include: (i) identifying and studying ways to best implement low-cost dissemination of genomic information; (ii) emphasizing genomic medicine education program evaluation and (iii) incorporating interprofessional and interdisciplinary initiatives. Genomic medicine education and training will become more and more relevant in the years to come as physicians increasingly interact with genomic and other precision medicine technologies.

BackgroundResearchers have largely turned to commercial app stores, randomized trials, and systematic reviews to make sense of the mHealth landscape. Few studies have approached understanding by collecting information from target end users. The end user perspective is critical as end user interest in and use of mHealth technologies will ultimately drive the efficacy of these tools.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to obtain information from end users of mHealth technologies to better understand the physical and mental health apps people use and for what purposes.MethodsPeople with depressive or anxious symptoms (N=176) seeking entry into a trial of mental health and well-being apps for Android devices completed online questionnaires assessing depression and anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), past and current mental health treatment-seeking behavior, overall mobile device use, and use of mobile health apps. Participants reported the physical health and mental health apps on their devices and their reasons for using them. Data were extracted from the participant self-reports and apps and app purposes were coded in order to categorize them.ResultsParticipants were largely white, middle-aged females from the Midwest region of the United States recruited via a health care organization and Web-based advertising (135 female, 41 male, mean age 38.64 years, age range 19-75 years.) Over three-quarters (137/176, 77.8%) of participants indicated having a health app on their device. The top 3 kinds of apps were exercise, fitness, and pedometers or heart rate monitoring apps (93/176, 52.8%); diet, food, or calorie counting apps (65/177, 36.9%); and mental health/wellness apps (46/177, 26.1%). The mean number of mobile physical and mental health apps on a participant’s phone was 2.15 (SD 3.195). Of 176 participants, 107 (60.8%) specifically reported the top 5 health apps that they used and their purposes. Across the 107 participants, a total of 285 apps were reported, with 139 being unique apps. The majority of these apps were free (129/139, 92.8%). Almost two-thirds of participants (67/107, 62.6%) reported using health apps at least on a daily basis.ConclusionsAmong those seeking support for their well-being via physical and mental health apps, people are using a variety of health apps. These people use health apps on a daily basis, especially free apps. The most common reason for using a health app is to track some health-related data; for mental health apps specifically, training or habit building was the most popular reason. Understanding the end user perspective is important because it allows us to build on the foundation of previously established mHealth research and may help guide future work in mHealth.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02176226; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02176226 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6rGc1MGyM)

BackgroundThe ability to successfully recruit participants for electronic health (eHealth) clinical trials is largely dependent on the use of efficient and effective recruitment strategies. Determining which types of recruitment strategies to use presents a challenge for many researchers.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to present an analysis of the time-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of recruitment strategies for eHealth clinical trials, and it describes a framework for cost-effective trial recruitment.MethodsParticipants were recruited for one of 5 eHealth trials of interventions for common mental health conditions. A multipronged recruitment approach was used, including digital (eg, social media and Craigslist), research registry-based, print (eg, flyers and posters on public transportation), clinic-based (eg, a general internal medicine clinic within an academic medical center and a large nonprofit health care organization), a market research recruitment firm, and traditional media strategies (eg, newspaper and television coverage in response to press releases). The time costs and fees for each recruitment method were calculated, and the participant yield on recruitment costs was calculated by dividing the number of enrolled participants by the total cost for each method.ResultsA total of 777 participants were enrolled across all trials. Digital recruitment strategies yielded the largest number of participants across the 5 clinical trials and represented 34.0% (264/777) of the total enrolled participants. Registry-based recruitment strategies were in second place by enrolling 28.0% (217/777) of the total enrolled participants across trials. Research registry-based recruitment had a relatively high conversion rate from potential participants who contacted our center for being screened to be enrolled, and it was also the most cost-effective for enrolling participants in this set of clinical trials with a total cost per person enrolled at US $8.99.ConclusionsOn the basis of these results, a framework is proposed for participant recruitment. To make decisions on initiating and maintaining different types of recruitment strategies, the resources available and requirements of the research study (or studies) need to be carefully examined.

No abstract