PURPOSE: A scale assessing primary care physicians' priorities for genetic education (The Gen-EP scale) was developed and tested in five European countries. The objective of this study was to determine its factor structure, to test scaling assumptions and to determine internal consistency. METHODS: The sample consisted of 3686 practitioners (general practitioners, gyneco-obstetricians, pediatricians) sampled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom. We first determined the factor structure of the Gen-EP scale (30 items) on the whole sample. Scaling assumptions were then tested on each country using multitrait scaling analysis. Internal consistency was assessed across the five countries. RESULTS: Six factors were identified accounting for 63.3% of the variance of the items. They represented the following priorities for genetic education: "Genetics of Common Diseases"; "Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues"; "Approaching Genetic Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice"; "Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations"; "Techniques and Innovation in Genetics" and "Psychosocial and Counseling Issues." In each country, convergent and discriminant validity were satisfactory. Internal-consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were all above the acceptable threshold (0.70). CONCLUSION: The Gen-EP scale could be a helpful instrument in different countries to organize and evaluate the impact of genetic educational programs for primary care providers.
PURPOSE: A scale assessing primary care physicians' priorities for genetic education (The Gen-EP scale) was developed and tested in five European countries. The objective of this study was to determine its factor structure, to test scaling assumptions and to determine internal consistency. METHODS: The sample consisted of 3686 practitioners (general practitioners, gyneco-obstetricians, pediatricians) sampled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom. We first determined the factor structure of the Gen-EP scale (30 items) on the whole sample. Scaling assumptions were then tested on each country using multitrait scaling analysis. Internal consistency was assessed across the five countries. RESULTS: Six factors were identified accounting for 63.3% of the variance of the items. They represented the following priorities for genetic education: "Genetics of Common Diseases"; "Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues"; "Approaching Genetic Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice"; "Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations"; "Techniques and Innovation in Genetics" and "Psychosocial and Counseling Issues." In each country, convergent and discriminant validity were satisfactory. Internal-consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were all above the acceptable threshold (0.70). CONCLUSION: The Gen-EP scale could be a helpful instrument in different countries to organize and evaluate the impact of genetic educational programs for primary care providers.
Authors: Irmgard Nippert; Hilary J Harris; Claire Julian-Reynier; Ulf Kristoffersson; Leo P Ten Kate; Elizabeth Anionwu; Caroline Benjamin; Kirsty Challen; Jörg Schmidtke; R Peter Nippert; Rodney Harris Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2010-12-04
Authors: C Z Barreiro; M P Bidondo; J A Garrido; J Deurloo; E Acevedo; A Luna; E Gutiérrez; C A Dellamea; C Picón; K Torres; M F De Castro; M V Torrado; M L Teiber; S Kassab; P Elmeaudy; J Rodriguez Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2013-08-01
Authors: Elisa Jf Houwink; Scheltus J van Luijk; Lidewij Henneman; Cees van der Vleuten; Geert Jan Dinant; Martina C Cornel Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Johanna Jakobsdottir; Michael B Gorin; Yvette P Conley; Robert E Ferrell; Daniel E Weeks Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Elisa J F Houwink; Lidewij Henneman; Myrte Westerneng; Scheltus J van Luijk; Martina C Cornel; Jan Geert Dinant; Cees van der Vleuten Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 8.822