Effect of Comprehensive Oncogenetics Training Interventions for General Practitioners, Evaluated at Multiple Performance Levels

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.

[1]  A. Muijtjens,et al.  Sustained effects of online genetics education: a randomized controlled trial on oncogenetics , 2013, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[2]  G. Dinant,et al.  Effectiveness of oncogenetics training on general practitioners' consultation skills: a randomized controlled trial , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[3]  Mattijs E Numans,et al.  Proposed roadmap to stepwise integration of genetics in family medicine and clinical research , 2013, Clinical and Translational Medicine.

[4]  Bernard Charlin,et al.  Varying conceptions of competence: an analysis of how health sciences educators define competence , 2012, Medical education.

[5]  C. Vleuten,et al.  Prioritization of future genetics education for general practitioners: a Delphi study , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  C. Mallen,et al.  Do GPs respond to postal questionnaire surveys? A comprehensive review of primary care literature. , 2011, Family practice.

[7]  Cees van der Vleuten,et al.  Genetic educational needs and the role of genetics in primary care: a focus group study with multiple perspectives , 2011, BMC family practice.

[8]  Ray B. Jones,et al.  Can We Make Assumptions About the Psychosocial Impact of Living as a Carrier, Based on Studies Assessing the Effects of Carrier Testing? , 2011, Journal of Genetic Counseling.

[9]  D. Levenson Geneticist to head NICHD , 2010 .

[10]  Paul G Shekelle,et al.  Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. , 2008, JAMA.

[11]  S. Fletcher Chairman's summary of the conference. Continuing education in the health professions: improving healthcare through lifelong learning. , 2008, Journal of continuing education in nursing.

[12]  D. Davis,et al.  Continuing medical education: AMEE Education Guide No 35 , 2008, Medical teacher.

[13]  Jocelyn Lockyer,et al.  A meta‐analysis of continuing medical education effectiveness , 2007, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[14]  M. Khoury,et al.  The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[15]  M. Aitken,et al.  A model for the development of genetics education programs for health professionals , 2007, Genetics in Medicine.

[16]  M. Lim,et al.  Postal surveys of physicians gave superior response rates over telephone interviews in a randomized trial. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  Lidewij Henneman,et al.  Deficient knowledge of genetics relevant for daily practice among medical students nearing graduation , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[18]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care , 2003, The Lancet.

[19]  E. Smets,et al.  Referral for genetic counselling during pregnancy: limited alertness and awareness about genetic risk factors among GPs. , 2003, Family practice.

[20]  Martha Reeves,et al.  Evaluation of Training , 1993 .

[21]  L. Sjodahl Evaluation of Training. , 1975 .

[22]  A. Sales,et al.  CPD and KT: Models Used and Opportunities for Synergy , 2011, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[23]  A. Guttmacher Geneticist to head NICHD. Interview by Deborah Levenson. , 2010, American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A.

[24]  J M Grimshaw,et al.  Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care. , 2005, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.