ArticleInternational journal of medical education2024
Evaluating an e-learning course's impact and challenges on genomic literacy among medical professionals.
Article in International journal of medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oncofertility information interventions in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to confirm and evaluate the learning effect of a physician-facing e-learning course on genetic medicine for improving genomic literacy. Methods: We employed qualitative and quantitative methodology to survey 103 physicians who took the course at a national university in Japan. Evaluations were conducted at the levels of participant feedback, learning, and behaviour. Participants completed a questionnaire and test (full score = 100) before and after the course. Pre- and post-test scores were compared using paired-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the difference their clinical experience. The effect size was estimated using Cohen's d. Results: Responses were obtained from 96 physicians. Approximately 80% (n = 75-93) of participants responded positively to the course, a result supported by the qualitative data. The mean scores for the pre- and post-test showed an increase from 71.25 to 74.58 (p=0.008). In particular, mean test scores increased significantly from 68.94 to 75.53 (p<0.001) in physicians with no clinical experience in genetic medicine, while no significance was observed scores for physicians with clinical experience in genetics from 73.47 to 73.67 (p=0.903). Behavioural assessment was carried out for 28 participants; however, no statistically significant differences were identified. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that our e-learning course was useful for physicians with no experience of genetic medicine. For those with experience, it may be necessary to provide more practice-based education and educational methodologies. Behavioural assessment needs to be examined further.
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.