Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37507729›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Evaluation of two Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in genomic variant interpretation for the NHS workforce.

Beth Coad, Katherine Joekes, Alicja Rudnicka, Amy Frost, Mark Robert Openshaw, Katrina Tatton-Brown, Katie Snape

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Beth CoadSt George's University of London, London, UK. bcoad@sgul.ac.uk.
Katherine JoekesSt George's University of London, London, UK.
Alicja RudnickaSt George's University of London, London, UK.
Amy FrostNational Genomics Education, NHS England, London, UK.
Mark Robert OpenshawInstitute of Cancer and Genomics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Katrina Tatton-BrownNational Genomics Education, NHS England, London, UK.
Katie SnapeSt George's University of London, London, UK.
St George's, University of London · GBNHS EnglandUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27223Cancer Research UK C61296/A27223
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe implementation of the National Genomic Medicine Service in the UK has increased patient access to germline genomic testing. Increased testing leads to more genetic diagnoses but does result in the identification of genomic variants of uncertain significance (VUS). The rigorous process of interpreting these variants requires multi-disciplinary, highly trained healthcare professionals (HCPs). To meet this training need, we designed two Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) for HCPs involved in germline genomic testing pathways: Fundamental Principles (FP) and Inherited Cancer Susceptibility (ICS).

methodsAn evaluation cohort of HCPs involved in genomic testing were recruited, with additional data also available from anonymous self-registered learners to both MOOCs. Pre- and post-course surveys and in-course quizzes were used to assess learner satisfaction, confidence and knowledge gained in variant interpretation. In addition, granular feedback was collected on the complexity of the MOOCs to iteratively improve the resources.

resultsA cohort of 92 genomics HCPs, including clinical scientists, and non-genomics clinicians (clinicians working in specialties outside of genomics) participated in the evaluation cohort. Between baseline and follow-up, total confidence scores improved by 38% (15.2/40.0) (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.4-18.0) for the FP MOOC and 54% (18.9/34.9) (95%CI 15.5-22.5) for the ICS MOOC (p < 0.0001 for both). Of those who completed the knowledge assessment through six summative variant classification quizzes (V1-6), a mean of 79% of respondents classified the variants such that correct clinical management would be undertaken (FP: V1 (73/90) 81% Likely Pathogenic/Pathogenic [LP/P]; V2 (55/78) 70% VUS; V3 (59/75) 79% LP/P; V4 (62/72) 86% LP/LP. ICS: V5 (66/91) 73% VUS; V6 (76/88) 86% LP/P). A non-statistically significant higher attrition rate was seen amongst the non-genomics workforce when compared to genomics specialists for both courses. More participants from the non-genomics workforce rated the material as "Too Complex" (FP n = 2/7 [29%], ICS n = 1/5 [20%]) when compared to the specialist genomics workforce (FP n = 1/43 [2%], ICS n = 0/35 [0%]).

conclusionsAfter completing one or both MOOCs, self-reported confidence in genomic variant interpretation significantly increased, and most respondents could correctly classify variants such that appropriate clinical management would be instigated. Genomics HCPs reported higher satisfaction with the level of content than the non-genomics clinicians. The MOOCs provided foundational knowledge and improved learner confidence, but should be adapted for different workforces to maximise the benefit for clinicians working in specialties outside of genetics.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceFeedbackHealth PersonnelHumansLearningState MedicineCancer genomicsGenomics educationGenomic variantsMOOCsOnline learning

Identifiers

PMID37507729
PMCPMC10386229
OpenAlexW4385349701

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.