Introduction
Methods
Eligibility
Procedure
Analysis
Results
Sample characteristics
Author, Year, Country | Population | N | Objectives | Training Content | Outcomes | Key results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Randomized | ||||||
Bell, 2014a, USA | PCPs | 3442 approached 155 enrolled 77 intervention 78 control 121 completed 60 intervention 61 control | To explore whether an educational intervention was more effective than a control at: -Improving risk assessment for hereditary BC -Discussing genetic testing/counseling including ELSI | Intervention: 6 h web-based curriculum covering: -Background of genetic testing -Risk assessment -Practice behaviors -Communication skills -Intervention employed clinical cases/tutorials on epidemiology and ELSI Control Carried out self-directed learning covering clinical genetics, ELSI, doctor–pt interaction and clinical reasoning | Outcomes collected approximately 1 month after training SP visits were conducted and analyzed using qualitative appraisal of topics and questions covered by the PCP | Participant differences No significant grp differences in demographics, years of experience or experience with inherited BC Results: Arms did not significantly differ on counseling behaviors, soliciting personal history, or discussing ELSI Intervention arm more likely to discuss benefits of counseling (37/60.7% control, 47/78.3% intervention, p 0.05), encourage SP to make decisions after genetic counseling (13/21.3% control, 23/38.3% intervention, p 0.05), ask about male relatives with prostate cancer (p 0.006), and discuss increased risk of cancer for male relatives (1/1.6% control, 12/ 20% intervention, p 0.001) Intervention grp significantly less likely to ask about Ashkenazi Jewish heritage (21/34.4% control, 8/13.3% intervention, (p 0.01) When asked “what would you do”, intervention grp significantly less likely to respond definitively that they would get tested (33/54.1% control, 20/33.3% intervention, p 0.03), and more likely to say it was the SP’s decision (n.s.) |
Houwink, 2014, The Netherlands | GPs | 2100 approached 88 enrolled 46 intervention 42 control 56 completed 38 intervention 18 control | Aim of improving -Recall of details about hereditary cancer -Recognition of pts at risk of inheritance -Pedigree drawing -Discussing hereditary risks, including management and ethical issues -Identification of pts for referral of risk assessment -Explaining the possibilities and limitations of oncogenetic testing -Knowing when to contact a genetic specialist | Intervention Training featured: -Hereditary forms of cancer -Discussion with pts who had a history of BRCA testing -Role-play of scenarios Control: Did not receive any additional training; this was offered later | All participants received a visit from an SP at baseline, 1, & 3 months post intervention Intervention grp only Questionnaires on applicability of gained knowledge and satisfaction with training. Latter questionnaire asked whether participants would recommend training and if it was relevant to practice | Participant differences: Grps did not differ significantly on age, sex, years, or type of experience or pre-test performance Results SPs Significant between grp performance difference of 0.19 (p < 0.0005) 1 month post intervention, not present at baseline or 3 months post Further regression analysis covarying for pre-test score, using the control grp score as reference, revealed a moderate effect size at 1 month post (standardized regression coefficient = 0.34) which was reduced, though still moderate, at 3 months (standardized regression coefficient = 0.28) Applicability Questionnaire completed by 17/38 participants; 65% reported applying their learnt skills monthly, 35% weekly Satisfaction Questionnaire completed by 18/38 Average response to both questions was 4.4/5 Average global grade for course was 7.7/10 |
Masny, 2008, USA | Nurses: 80% from a community setting 20% from a cancer center | Unk approached 41 enrolled 20 intervention 21 control 25 completed, unk by arm | Program aimed to improve: -Understanding of clinical cancer genetics -Knowledge of genetic assessment, syndromes and pedigrees -Communication of testing benefits and limitations -Evaluation of ELSI and psychosocial issues for individuals and their family -Integrate knowledge of risk estimation models -Development of follow up plans Apply skills to disclosure -Utilization of a mentor service to improve critical thinking and counseling skills | Intervention Training covered: -Review of molecular cancer genetics -Cancer risk assessment -Benefits and limitations of genetic technologies -Case studies illustrating psychosocial and ELSI concerns -Cancer risk estimation -Medical management for high-risk breast/ovarian carriers -Pre- and post-test counseling including decisional support -Overview of mentorship and professional development Control Same training but mentorship delayed 3 to 6 months from course completion | Mentorship program assessed on increased networking skills, self-efficacy and provided support for continued learning Changes to networking and self-efficacy assessed by questionnaire at baseline, 3, and 6 months Mentorship activity documented via a log with a telephone interview between participants and health educators to discuss the experience | Participant differences Grps did not differ on education, working with, or experience of, a Cancer Risk Assessment program Results Analyses are combined for control and intervention arms There was a significant improvement in self-efficacy for the entire grp including: explanation of genetic concepts, assessment of cancer risk, development of differential syndrome list, interpretation and disclosure of results, discussion of cancer screening, chemoprevention and prophylactic surgery (all p < 0.05 with an average mean change across domains of .91 on a scale of 1–5) There was an increase in networking between genetic nurses and counselors from 17 participants at baseline to 33 at 6 months Participants felt there was benefit to the mentoring program |
Wilkes, 2017a, USA | See Bell 2014 | Self-efficacy 28 items; 20 capturing self-efficacy for genetically related skills or knowledge, pre and post intervention, both grps Knowledge 43 items covering breast/ovarian cancer genetics, genetic testing, SDM, ELSI, venous thromboembolism, and perinatal/pediatric genetic testing. Pre and post intervention, both grps Program assessment Grps assessed curriculum on a number of features Pre- and Post-intervention objective structured video exercises (OSVE) 6 videos assessing clinical thinking, judgment, and intended behaviors SP visit This SP was a woman at risk for inherited BC visiting about 5 weeks after the intervention. This was recorded, transcribed, and coded | Participant differences No significant between grp differences for demographics, years of practice, or experience with inherited BC Results: 92% of intervention participants viewed all of the content, control participants an average of 87% Self-efficacy Clinical skills efficacy and genetic knowledge, both assessed on a scale of 1–5, improved in both arms p < 0.01, with significant between grp differences (p 0.02 for both). Clinical skills self-efficacy: Intervention: 3.0 (2.8 – 3.1)—> 3.8 (3.6–3.9) Δ = 0.8 (0.6–0.9); Control: 3.0 (2.9–3.2)—> 3.6 (3.5–3.7) Δ = 0.6 (0.4–0.7). Genetic knowledge: Intervention: 2.4 (2.3 – 2.6)—> 3.4 (3.3–3.6) Δ = 1.0 (0.9–1.1); Control: 2.5 (2.4—2.6)—> 3.3 (3.1–3.4) Δ = 0.8 (0.6–0.9) Knowledge Both arms significantly improved their cumulative knowledge, knowledge about BRCA genetics, BC, ELSI, and ethics in the pediatric setting, all reported as % correct (Average mean change for intervention: 17.50, for control: 8.25, p < .05 for all within and between grp comparisons aside from ethics in the pediatric setting—between grp p 0.08) Significant improvement in the intervention grp only was seen for knowledge about genetic testing (67.9—> 80.0, p < 0.01 for within [intervention only] and between) and general genetics/VTE (65.5—> 86.9, p < 0.01 for within [intervention only] and between) Neither grp improved in SDM Program assessment Intervention grp significantly more likely to rate the course highly and recommend to colleagues (p < .0001 for both, no further detail available) OSVE Both grps improved significantly (Intervention 11.4—> 14.2 p < 0.01; Control 11.2–> 13.8 p < 0.01 for both) without significant between grp differences. Possible scores ranged from 0–40 SP visits SPs tended to score the intervention arm more highly on their communication skills, offering options for care, being encouraged to ask questions, feeling listened to and having enough time Participants in general asked about 20% of the personal and family history questions but did not spend as much time on psychosocial concerns | |||
Not randomized, with a control | ||||||
McGovern, 2010, USA | 3rd year medical students | Unk approached 136 enrolled on SP program 121 completed 63 controls completed 6-month assessment. Unclear how many controls completed baseline assessment | To assess SP program at improving medical students’ assessment and communication of genetic information and risk | All students received an orientation lecture including information about cancer genetics, BRCA, surveillance options, risks and benefits of testing, ELSI, and pedigree analysis. A sub-set of these students took part in an SP program Intervention Students met with SP twice: pre-disclosure and disclosure Students were expected to capture a pedigree, medical history, discuss testing options, and deliver a result with explanation of its meaning and implications for treatment and family concerns | Skill level 5-point Likert scale to self-assess skill levels for: -taking medical and family histories -drawing a pedigree -assessing and communicating genetic risks All students completed this prior to orientation lecture and 6 months after the program. Students in the SP program also completed this prior to each visit SP checklist SPs completed a checklist about the student’s communication skills following each visit Knowledge test 8-item test given before the 2nd SP visit Student evaluation Students evaluated SP program after each visit on a 5-point Likert scale for clarity of instruction, realism, adequacy of time, usefulness of the exercise, and any areas to improve their own skills | Participant differences Not included Results Skill level On a 5-point scale, skill levels improved in the intervention grp between baseline and prior to SP1 on drawing a pedigree (1.6—> 3.6; p < 0.01) and assessing genetic risk (1.3–> 2.7; p < 0.05); and between prior to SP1 and prior to SP2 on obtaining medical history (3.3—> 4.1; p < 0.05), assessing genetic risk (2.7–> 4.3; p < 0.01), and communicating risk (2.4–> 3.8; p < 0.01) Significant differences in skill levels were reported between the intervention and control grps at 6 months on drawing a pedigree (4.2, 2.4; p < 0.01), assessing genetic risk (3.7, 1.9; p < 0.01), and communicating risk (3.9, 2.2; p < 0.05); however, this analysis is problematic as baseline scores for control grp are not reported SP checklist These assessments demonstrated that students had good contracting, communicating, and closure skills with 90% eliciting a family history at the 1st encounter Only 60% explored how the SP could use the results or provided any visual aids In the 2nd encounter, 96% were able to communicate medical risks and management options but only 60% could explain the risk of cancer or address emotional concerns Student evaluation 90% of participants agreed that the program was useful in identifying areas for improvement with 95% noting improved confidence |
No comparator | ||||||
Blazer, 2005, USA | Genetic counselors, masters level advanced nurse practitioners, physicians | Unk approached 40 enrolled 29 completed | -Demonstrate knowledge of relevant genetic and oncology principles -Assess personal and family history for pedigree analysis -Recognize features of hereditary cancer syndromes -Apply risk assessment and testing strategies -Recommend risk-appropriate surveillance and prevention -Communicate ELSI and psychological issues -Participate in MDT of practitioners | Course covered basic genetic material including a wet lab, oncology content, cancer risk counseling skills with mock risk assessments and practice sessions, and hereditary cancer syndromes Participants attended a 2-week on-site training program Course was delivered using workshops, journal clubs, MDT attendance, wet labs, practice counseling sessions, and a cancer genetic conference | Knowledge test 40 true/false items pre and post course covering cancer genetics, oncology, cancer syndrome recognition, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing, and ELSI Professional development and practice outcomes survey A checklist of prescribed post-course activities was completed 6 months after course completion with a clinical practice survey completed after a year Participant satisfaction CME evaluation of each module was attached to the final exam | Knowledge There was a significant knowledge gain from 65 to 80% correct post intervention (t(39) = 6.67; p < .0.001) Professional development 35 (80%) of participants completed and returned this evaluation at 6 months. All respondents had completed their designated reading assignments and some presented the information to other professionals Of the 29 participants who responded to the 1-year post-course survey, 7 had, or were in the process, of setting up a new genetic risk assessment practice 22 (76%) said the course had improved their professional self-efficacy and 18 (62%) said the course improved their ability and confidence Participant satisfaction 95% of respondents said they continued to use and benefit from the course material |
Lee, 2013, Korea | Doctors, nurses, and 1 ‘other medical professional’ | Unk approached 35 enrolled 33 and 30 completed the final awareness and knowledge test, respectively | To assess the effect of genetic counseling education on HCP knowledge, awareness, and counseling skills for pts at high risk for HBOC | 3-day training event with lectures on cancer genetics, hereditary BC, HBOC of the Korean population, genetic testing and interpretation, ELSI, and pre- and post-test counseling Hands on practice sessions for risk assessment, pedigree drawing, and counseling | Participants completed pre- and post-course 49 true/false knowledge questions along with questionnaires capturing: AW—awareness of genetic counseling education AK—confidence in ability to perform counseling AS—confidence in counseling practice | Overall knowledge scores improved significantly at post-test with 30 responders (37.40 ± 4.64—> 40.20 ± 2.52; maximum possible score 49, p = 0.002) with significant improvement in the areas of hereditary BC syndromes (5.58 ± 1.32—> 7.68 ± 0.77; p < 0.0001 9 items), pre-test counseling (10.0 ± 1.05–> 11.0 ± 0.98; p 0.001 12 items), and genetic testing & interpretation (3.20 ± 0.92–> 3.93 ± 0.25; p 0.001 4 items) Cancer genetics and post-test counseling were significantly worse (3.97 ± 1.16–> 3.20 ± 0.71; p 0.006 5 items and 9.66 ± 1.79–> 8.80 ± 1.45; p 0.02 12 items, respectively) For the 33 participants who completed the awareness and confidence questionnaires, there was significant improvement across all 3 categories (AW 2 items: 3.87 ± 0.55—> 4.72 ± 0.37 t 8.963, AK 7 items: 3.13 ± 0.87—> 4.35 ± 0.52 t 9.819, AS 9 items: 3.18 ± 0.76—> 4.27 ± 0.53 t 8.727, all p < 0.001) Of 12 participants who provided feedback, 6 identified the importance of communication skills. Most respondents wanted more educational programs about counseling practice |