Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35887625›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

Genetics and Genomics Teaching in Nursing Programs in a Latin American Country.

Luís Carlos Lopes-Júnior, Emiliana Bomfim, Milena Flória-Santos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Global Health and Genomics.The Nursing clinics of North America · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Advances in Personalized Nursing Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
    Article
  7. Health Policies for Rare Disease Patients: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Luís Carlos Lopes-JúniorHealth Sciences Center, Nursing Department, Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES), Av. Marechal Campos, 1468, Maruípe, Vitoria 29043-900, ES, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2424-6510
Emiliana BomfimMcGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada.
Milena Flória-SantosDepartment of Maternal-Infant Nursing and Public Health Nursing, University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto College of Nursing, 3900 Avenida Bandeirantes, Ribeirão Preto 14040-902, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0656-1736
McGill University · CAUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidade Federal do Espírito Santo · BR

Funding

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development Process Number: 135156/2011-4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the importance of genetics and genomics in nursing education has been widely recognized, surveys carried out in several countries show that these subjects are still limited in nursing undergraduate programs. In Latin America, the teaching of genetics and genomics in nursing programs has never been previously documented. Considering this scenario, we aimed to investigate how genetics and genomics have been taught in undergraduate nursing programs in Brazil. A total of 138 undergraduate nursing program coordinators and 49 faculty members were recruited to participate in this cross-sectional study. After IRB approval, data were collected using an online survey, covering curriculum design, faculty credentials, genetics and/or genomics teaching, as well as their impressions regarding the document "Essential Nursing Competencies and Curricula Guidelines for Genetics and Genomics". Genetics is taught in most of the investigated courses (67.3%), mainly by biologists (77.6%), with master's degree (83.7%), and with the syllabus mainly focused on molecular biology. More instructors agreed with Competency 2 (C2) which refers to advocating for clients' access to desired genetic/genomic services and/or resources including support groups as well as C23 which refer to using health promotion/disease prevention practices that incorporate knowledge of genetic and genomic risk factors, than coordinators. That is, the participants' type of appointment (instructors vs. coordinators) had a significant effect on their agreement level with competencies C2 (χ

Indexed as

competencycurriculumgeneticsgenomicsnursing educationteaching

Identifiers

PMID35887625
PMCPMC9325240
OpenAlexW4285092893

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.