Effectiveness of oncogenetics training on general practitioners’ consultation skills: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Purpose:General practitioners are increasingly called upon to deliver genetic services and could play a key role in translating potentially life-saving advancements in oncogenetic technologies to patient care. If general practitioners are to make an effective contribution in this area, their genetics competencies need to be upgraded. The aim of this study was to investigate whether oncogenetics training for general practitioners improves their genetic consultation skills.Methods:In this pragmatic, blinded, randomized controlled trial, the intervention consisted of a 4-h training (December 2011 and April 2012), covering oncogenetic consultation skills (family history, familial risk assessment, and efficient referral), attitude (medical ethical issues), and clinical knowledge required in primary-care consultations. Outcomes were measured using observation checklists by unannounced standardized patients and self-reported questionnaires.Results:Of 88 randomized general practitioners who initially agreed to participate, 56 completed all measurements. Key consultation skills significantly and substantially improved; regression coefficients after intervention were equivalent to 0.34 and 0.28 at 3-month follow-up, indicating a moderate effect size. Satisfaction and perceived applicability of newly learned skills were highly scored.Conclusion:The general practitioner–specific training proved to be a feasible, satisfactory, and clinically applicable method to improve oncogenetics consultation skills and could be used as an educational framework to inform future training activities with the ultimate aim of improving medical care.

Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review

“…Third, although near all studies indicated that their training programs successfully increased participants' knowledge, attitudes, skills, intention, self-efficacy, comfort level, and/or practice behavior in genomics practice, a few studies adopted rigorous study designs and evaluation plans. In fact, only 7 of the 44 reviewed articles 6,24,34,37,39,43,45 used a quasi-experimental design or randomized controlled trial/experimental design. The majority of the studies did not collect follow-up data, utilize advanced statistical techniques to control potential confounders, or report data validity and reliability.…”

Primary Care Providers’ Use of Pharmacist Support for Delivery of Pharmacogenetic Testing

“…A similar finding in our study about decreased provider knowledge and recall about PGx testing following the intervention period may also be attributed to physicians' reliance on the pharmacist. Development of a longer CME or a series of CME sessions might have proven more effective to promote provider's knowledge as has been demonstrated elsewhere [38], and could have potentially reduced the need for a pharmacist for an extended period of time.…”

Delivering genomic medicine in the United Kingdom National Health Service: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

“…Seven papers investigated educational interventions for clinicians, including six evaluations of novel education interventions 11,29,[47][48][49][50] and one systematic review. 51 The studies reported that education interventions improved genetics knowledge amongst clinicians.…”