Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23722870›Full record

Trial reportGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2014

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

Elisa J F Houwink, Arno M M Muijtjens, Sarah R van Teeffelen, Lidewij Henneman, Jan Joost Rethans, Liesbeth E J van der Jagt, Scheltus J van Luijk, Geert Jan Dinant, Cees van der Vleuten, Martina C Cornel

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Delivering genomic medicine in the United Kingdom National Health Service: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2022
    Article
  13. Issues associated with a hereditary risk of cancer: Knowledge, attitudes and practices of nurses in oncology settings.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. The Gen-Equip Project: evaluation and impact of genetics e-learning resources for primary care in six European languages.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Elisa J F Houwink1] Department of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [2] Department of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Arno M M MuijtjensDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sarah R van TeeffelenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan Joost RethansSkills Lab, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth E J van der JagtThe Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Scheltus J van LuijkDepartment of Education and Resident Training, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Geert Jan DinantDepartment of General Practice, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Cees van der VleutenDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Martina C CornelDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGeneral 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.

methodsIn 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.

resultsOf 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.

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

General PractitionersGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetics, MedicalMedical OncologyNeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceHumansRegression AnalysisSelf Report

Identifiers

PMID23722870
PMCPMC3914027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.