Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25837634›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Effect of comprehensive oncogenetics training interventions for general practitioners, evaluated at multiple performance levels.

Elisa J F Houwink, Arno M M Muijtjens, Sarah R van Teeffelen, Lidewij Henneman, Jan Joost Rethans, Florijn Jacobi, Liesbeth van der Jagt, Irina Stirbu, Scheltus J van Luijk, Connie T R M Stumpel and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. 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. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A guided-inquiry investigation of genetic variants using Oxford nanopore sequencing for an undergraduate molecular biology laboratory course.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The composition and capacity of the clinical genetics workforce in high-income countries: a scoping review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Elisa J F HouwinkDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; School for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Family Medicine, 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 Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan Joost RethansSkillslab, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Florijn JacobiDutch College of General practitioners (NHG), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth van der JagtDutch College of General practitioners (NHG), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Irina StirbuCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Scheltus J van LuijkDepartment of Resident Training, Maastricht University Medical Centre +, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Connie T R M StumpelDepartment of Clinical Genetics, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht UMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Hanne E Meijers-HeijboerDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, 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 Community Genetics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Geert Jan DinantSchool for Public Health and Primary Care, Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLMaastricht University · NLDutch College of General Practitioners · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly called upon to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancers, and their genetic competencies need to be enhanced. This article gives an overview of a research project on how to build effective educational modules on genetics, assessed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reflecting the prioritized educational needs of primary care physicians. It also reports on an ongoing study to investigate long-term increase in genetic consultation skills (1-year follow-up) and interest in and satisfaction with a supportive website on genetics among GPs. Three oncogenetics modules were developed: an online Continuing Professional Development (G-eCPD) module, a live genetic CPD module, and a "GP and genetics" website (huisartsengenetica.nl) providing further genetics information applicable in daily practice. Three assessments to evaluate the effectiveness (1-year follow-up) of the oncogenetic modules were designed: 1.An online questionnaire on self-reported genetic competencies and changes in referral behaviour, 2.Referral rates from GPs to clinical genetics centres and 3.Satisfaction questionnaire and visitor count analytics of supportive genetics website. The setting was Primary care in the Netherlands and three groups of study participants were included in the reported studies:. Assessment 1. 168 GPs responded to an email invitation and were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group, evaluating the G-eCPD module (n = 80) or the live module (n = 88). Assessment 2. Referral rates by GPs were requested from the clinical genetics centres, in the northern and southern parts of the Netherlands (Amsterdam and Maastricht), for the two years before (2010 [n = 2510] and 2011 [n = 2940]) and the year after (2012 [n = 2875]) launch of the oncogenetics CPD modules and the website. Assessment 3. Participants of the website evaluation were all recruited online. When they visited the website during the month of February 2013, a pop-up invitation came up. Of the 1350 unique visitors that month, only 38 completed the online questionnaire. Main outcomes measure showed long-term (self-reported) genetic consultation skills (i.e. increased genetics awareness and referrals to clinical genetics centres) among GPs who participated in the oncogenetic training course, and interest in and satisfaction with the supportive website. 42 GPs (52%) who previously participated in the G-eCPD evaluation study and 50 GPs (57%) who participated in the live training programme responded to the online questionnaire on long-term effects of educational outcome. Previous RCTs showed that the genetics CPD modules achieved sustained improvement of oncogenetic knowledge and consultation skills (3-months follow-up). Participants of these RCTs reported being more aware of genetic problems long term; this was reported by 29 GPs (69%) and 46 GPs (92%) participating in the G-eCPD and live module evaluation studies, respectively (Chisquare test, p<0.005). One year later, 68% of the respondents attending the live training reported that they more frequently referred patients to the clinical genetics centres, compared to 29% of those who attended the online oncogenetics training (Chisquare test, p<0.0005). However, the clinical genetics centres reported no significant change in referral numbers one year after the training. Website visitor numbers increased, as did satisfaction, reflected in a 7.7 and 8.1 (out of 10) global rating of the website (by G-eCPD and live module participants, respectively). The page most often consulted was "family tree drawing". Self-perceived genetic consultation skills increased long-term and GPs were interested in and satisfied with the supportive website. Further studies are necessary to see whether the oncogenetics CPD modules result in more efficient referral. The results presented suggest we have provided a flexible and effective framework to meet the need for effective educational programmes for non-geneticist healthcare providers, enabling improvement of genetic medical care.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, ContinuingGeneral PractitionersGenetics, MedicalMedical OncologyConsumer BehaviorHumansInternetNetherlandsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReferral and ConsultationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25837634
PMCPMC4383330
OpenAlexW1980494166

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.