ArticlePloS one2015
Effect of comprehensive oncogenetics training interventions for general practitioners, evaluated at multiple performance levels.
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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- 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 · 2019Pooled 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
- 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
- Oncogenetics training in Brazilian medical genetics residency programs: current landscape and challenges.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Implementing Timely Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Using a Genetics Copilot for Point-of-Care Education and Health Assessment.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A theory- and empirically informed evaluation framework.American journal of human genetics · 2024Review
- Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Hemoglobinopathy screening in primary care in the Netherlands: exploring the problems and needs of patients and general practitioners.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Health complaints in individual visiting primary health care: population-based national electronic health records of Iran.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Practitioners' Confidence and Desires for Education in Cardiovascular and Sudden Cardiac Death Genetics.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- SERIES: eHealth in primary care. Part 3: eHealth education in primary care.The European journal of general practice · 2020Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- The implementation of pharmacogenomics into UK general practice: a qualitative study exploring barriers, challenges and opportunities.Journal of community genetics · 2020Article
- First Responder to Genomic Information: A Guide for Primary Care Providers.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019Review
- Information exchange between patients with Lynch syndrome and their genetic and non-genetic health professionals: whose responsibility?Journal of community genetics · 2019Article
- Evidence-Based Genetic Education of Non-Genetic-Expert Physicians: Experiences Over Three Decades in Amsterdam.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.