INTRODUCTION: Technology and market forces are driving the demand for cancer risk assessment services in the community setting, where few clinicians are trained to order and interpret predictive genetic tests. City of Hope conducts a three-phase course in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for community-based clinicians, comprised of distance didactics, face-to-face workshops, and 12 months of professional development. As designed, the course cannot meet increasing demands for GCRA training. Action research identified face-to-face workshops as a barrier to increasing course capacity. This study compared the learning effectiveness of Web-based case conferencing to face-to-face training. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design compared pre- to post-knowledge, skills, and professional self-efficacy outcomes from 2009 to 2010 course cohorts (n = 96). The intervention group (n = 52) engaged in Web-based case conferences during distance learning; the comparison group (n = 44) participated in the course as originally designed. RESULTS: Both groups and all practice disciplines demonstrated significant pre- to post-increases on all measures. Knowledge increases were higher for the intervention group (p < 0.015); skills and self-efficacy increases were comparable between groups (p < 0.33 and p < 0.30, respectively). DISCUSSION: Findings support the learning utility of Web-based case conferencing. Further studies may inform the development of tools to assess the impact of Web-based case conferencing on practice change and patient outcomes, in alignment with the highest standards of continuing professional development.
INTRODUCTION: Technology and market forces are driving the demand for cancer risk assessment services in the community setting, where few clinicians are trained to order and interpret predictive genetic tests. City of Hope conducts a three-phase course in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for community-based clinicians, comprised of distance didactics, face-to-face workshops, and 12 months of professional development. As designed, the course cannot meet increasing demands for GCRA training. Action research identified face-to-face workshops as a barrier to increasing course capacity. This study compared the learning effectiveness of Web-based case conferencing to face-to-face training. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design compared pre- to post-knowledge, skills, and professional self-efficacy outcomes from 2009 to 2010 course cohorts (n = 96). The intervention group (n = 52) engaged in Web-based case conferences during distance learning; the comparison group (n = 44) participated in the course as originally designed. RESULTS: Both groups and all practice disciplines demonstrated significant pre- to post-increases on all measures. Knowledge increases were higher for the intervention group (p < 0.015); skills and self-efficacy increases were comparable between groups (p < 0.33 and p < 0.30, respectively). DISCUSSION: Findings support the learning utility of Web-based case conferencing. Further studies may inform the development of tools to assess the impact of Web-based case conferencing on practice change and patient outcomes, in alignment with the highest standards of continuing professional development.
Authors: N L Bennett; D A Davis; W E Easterling; P Friedmann; J S Green; B M Koeppen; P E Mazmanian; H S Waxman Journal: Acad Med Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Susan Thomas Vadaparampil; Louise Wideroff; Lorayn Olson; K Viswanath; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J MacDonald; Julie O Culver; Kenneth Offit Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jason L Vassy; J Kelly Davis; Christine Kirby; Ian J Richardson; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Peter A Ubel Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Ekland Abdiwahab; Heather M Edwards; Min-Lin Fang; Andrew Jdayani; Erica S Breslau Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: K D Christensen; J L Vassy; L Jamal; L S Lehmann; M J Slashinski; D L Perry; J O Robinson; J Blumenthal-Barby; L Z Feuerman; M F Murray; R C Green; A L McGuire Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Bita Nehoray; Thomas P Slavin; Can-Lan Sun; Karen Hurley; Elisabeth King; Kevin K Tsang; Aleck Cervantes; Janet V Mokhnatkin; Sharon Sand; Rosa Mejia; Anne Reb; Goli Samimi; Stacy Gray; Kathleen R Blazer; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 2.717
Authors: Catherine Hajek; Allison M Hutchinson; Lauren N Galbraith; Robert C Green; Michael F Murray; Natasha Petry; Charlene L Preys; Carrie L B Zawatsky; Emilie S Zoltick; Kurt D Christensen Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: E Kate Reed; Katherine A Johansen Taber; Therese Ingram Nissen; Suzanna Schott; Lynn O Dowling; James C O'Leary; Joan A Scott Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Thomas Paul Slavin; Mariana Niell-Swiller; Ilana Solomon; Bita Nehoray; Christina Rybak; Kathleen R Blazer; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 6.244