Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30050101›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2019

The Gen-Equip Project: evaluation and impact of genetics e-learning resources for primary care in six European languages.

Leigh Jackson, Anita O'Connor, Milena Paneque, Vaclava Curtisova, Peter W Lunt, Radka Kremlíková Pourova, Milan Macek, Vigdis Stefansdottir, Daniela Turchetti, Mariana Campos and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Leigh JacksonFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Anita O'ConnorFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Milena Panequei3S Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology (IBMC)-Centre for Predictive and Preventive Genetics (CGPP), Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Vaclava CurtisovaDept. of Biology and Medical Genetics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic.
Peter W LuntFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Radka Kremlíková PourovaDept. of Biology and Medical Genetics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic.
Milan MacekDept. of Biology and Medical Genetics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic.
Vigdis StefansdottirLandspitali National University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Daniela TurchettiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Unit of Medical Genetics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Mariana CamposGenetic Alliance UK, London, United Kingdom.
Lidewij HennemanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section Community Genetics and Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lea GodinoUO Oncologia, Policlinico Sant'Orsola Malpighi, Bologna, Italy.
Heather SkirtonFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Martina C CornelDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Section Community Genetics and Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. mc.cornel@vumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGenetic advances mean patients at risk of genetic conditions can be helped through testing, clinical screening, and preventive treatment, but they must first be identified to benefit. Ensuring quality of genetic care for patients requires genetic expertise in all health services, including primary care. To address an educational shortfall, a series of e-learning resources was developed in six languages to equip primary care professionals with genetic skills relevant for practice. The purpose of the study was to evaluate these resources using Kirkpatrick's framework for educational outcomes.

methodsMixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) were used over four phases of the study.

resultsA high level of satisfaction with the resources was reported. Knowledge and skills improved significantly after using the education material. Participants reported changes in confidence and practice behavior, including family history taking, seeking advice from specialists and referring patients. The resources helped users to learn how to explain genetics. Many visited the resources repeatedly and some used them to educate colleagues or students.

conclusionGen-Equip modules are effective in improving genetic knowledge, skills, and attitudes for primary care professionals. They provide both continuing professional development and just-in-time learning for a potentially large global audience at a practical level.

Indexed as

AdultClinical CompetenceComputer-Assisted InstructionFemaleGeneticsHumansLanguageLearningMalePhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Health CareSimulation TrainingStudentsgeneticsmixed methodsonline educationprimary careprofessional education

Identifiers

PMID30050101
PMCPMC6752302

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.