ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2014
Sustained effects of online genetics education: a randomized controlled trial on oncogenetics.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Building capacity for genomics in primary care: a scoping review of practitioner attitudes, education needs, and enablers.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review.Family medicine and community health · 2022Pooled it
- Online Digital Education for Postregistration Training of Medical Doctors: Systematic Review by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Adopting clinical genomics: a systematic review of genomic literacy among physicians in cancer care.BMC medical genomics · 2018Pooled it
- E-learning for health professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Pooled it
- A systematic review of interventions to provide genetics education for primary care.BMC family practice · 2016Pooled it
- Oncogenetics training in Brazilian medical genetics residency programs: current landscape and challenges.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A theory- and empirically informed evaluation framework.American journal of human genetics · 2024Review
- The UTHealth Houston Adult Cardiovascular Genomics Certificate Program: Efficacy and Impact on Healthcare Professionals.Research square · 2024Article
- Training of community health agents - a strategy for earlier recognition of mucopolysaccharidoses.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Anticipating the primary care role in genomic medicine: expectations of genetics health professionals.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Pharmacogenomic testing to support prescribing in primary care: a structured review of implementation models.Pharmacogenomics · 2021Review
- Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics).Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Using technology-based educational interventions to improve knowledge about clinical practice guidelines.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2021Article
- Design of a study to implement population-based risk assessment for hereditary cancer genetic testing in primary care.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Article
- Preparing Medical Specialists for Genomic Medicine: Continuing Education Should Include Opportunities for Experiential Learning.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical professionals are increasingly expected to deliver genetic services in daily patient care. However, genetics education is considered to be suboptimal and in urgent need of revision and innovation. We designed a Genetics e-learning Continuing Professional Development (CPD) module aimed at improving general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge about oncogenetics, and we conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the outcomes at the first two levels of the Kirkpatrick framework (satisfaction, learning and behavior). Between September 2011 and March 2012, a parallel-group, pre- and post-retention (6-month follow-up) controlled group intervention trial was conducted, with repeated measurements using validated questionnaires. Eighty Dutch GP volunteers were randomly assigned to the intervention or the control group. Satisfaction with the module was high, with the three item's scores in the range 4.1-4.3 (5-point scale) and a global score of 7.9 (10-point scale). Knowledge gains post test and at retention test were 0.055 (P<0.05) and 0.079 (P<0.01), respectively, with moderate effect sizes (0.27 and 0.31, respectively). The participants appreciated applicability in daily practice of knowledge aspects (item scores 3.3-3.8, five-point scale), but scores on self-reported identification of disease, referral to a specialist and knowledge about the possibilities/limitations of genetic testing were near neutral (2.7-2.8, five-point scale). The Genetics e-learning CPD module proved to be a feasible, satisfactory and clinically applicable method to improve oncogenetics knowledge. The educational effects can inform further development of online genetics modules aimed at improving physicians' genetics knowledge and could potentially be relevant internationally and across a wider range of potential audiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.