BACKGROUND: Many primary care physicians (PCPs) are ill-equipped to provide screening and counseling for inherited breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of an interactive web-based genetics curriculum versus text curriculum for primary care physicians. DESIGN: Randomized two-group design. PARTICIPANTS: 121 California and Pennsylvania community physicians. INTERVENTION: Web-based interactive genetics curriculum, evaluated against a control group of physicians who studied genetics review articles. After education, physicians interacted with an announced standardized patient (SP) at risk for inherited breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Transcripts of visit discussions were coded for presence or absence of 69 topics relevant to inherited breast cancer. KEY RESULTS: Across all physicians, history-taking, discussions of test result implications, and exploration of ethical and legal issues were incomplete. Approximately half of physicians offered a genetic counseling referral (54.6%), and fewer (43.8%) recommended testing. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to explore genetic counseling benefits (78.3% versus 60.7%, P = 0.048), encourage genetic counseling before testing (38.3% versus 21.3%, P = 0.048), ask about a family history of prostate cancer (25.0% versus 6.6%, P = 0.006), and report that a positive result indicated an increased risk of prostate cancer for male relatives (20.0% versus 1.6%, P = 0.001). Intervention-group physicians were less likely than controls to ask about Ashkenazi heritage (13.3% versus 34.4%, P = 0.01) or to reply that they would get tested when asked, "What would you do?" (33.3% versus 54.1%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians infrequently performed key counseling behaviors, and this was true regardless of whether they had completed the web-based interactive training or read clinical reviews.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many primary care physicians (PCPs) are ill-equipped to provide screening and counseling for inherited breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of an interactive web-based genetics curriculum versus text curriculum for primary care physicians. DESIGN: Randomized two-group design. PARTICIPANTS: 121 California and Pennsylvania community physicians. INTERVENTION: Web-based interactive genetics curriculum, evaluated against a control group of physicians who studied genetics review articles. After education, physicians interacted with an announced standardized patient (SP) at risk for inherited breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Transcripts of visit discussions were coded for presence or absence of 69 topics relevant to inherited breast cancer. KEY RESULTS: Across all physicians, history-taking, discussions of test result implications, and exploration of ethical and legal issues were incomplete. Approximately half of physicians offered a genetic counseling referral (54.6%), and fewer (43.8%) recommended testing. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to explore genetic counseling benefits (78.3% versus 60.7%, P = 0.048), encourage genetic counseling before testing (38.3% versus 21.3%, P = 0.048), ask about a family history of prostate cancer (25.0% versus 6.6%, P = 0.006), and report that a positive result indicated an increased risk of prostate cancer for male relatives (20.0% versus 1.6%, P = 0.001). Intervention-group physicians were less likely than controls to ask about Ashkenazi heritage (13.3% versus 34.4%, P = 0.01) or to reply that they would get tested when asked, "What would you do?" (33.3% versus 54.1%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians infrequently performed key counseling behaviors, and this was true regardless of whether they had completed the web-based interactive training or read clinical reviews.
Authors: Katrina F Trivers; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Jacqueline W Miller; Barbara Matthews; C Holly A Andrilla; Denise M Lishner; Barbara A Goff Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S U Dhar; H P Cooper; T Wang; B Parks; S A Staggs; S Hilsenbeck; S E Plon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Malathi Srinivasan; Frank C Day; Erin Griffin; Daniel J Tancredi; Wylie Burke; Linda Pinsky; Roberta A Pagon; Jerome R Hoffman; Michael S Wilkes Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: John M Quillin; Alexander H Krist; Maria Gyure; Rosalie Corona; Vivian Rodriguez; Joseph Borzelleca; Joann N Bodurtha Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2013-07-20
Authors: Windy Olaya; Pamela Esquivel; Jan H Wong; John W Morgan; Adam Freeberg; Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury; Sharon S Lum Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Caroline M Weipert; Kerry A Ryan; Jessica N Everett; Beverly M Yashar; Arul M Chinnaiyan; J Scott Roberts; Raymond De Vries; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Victoria M Raymond Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Margaret Sin; Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Alejandro Vanegas; Thomas B Silverman; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2019-04-24
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: Nick Dragojlovic; Kennedy Borle; Nicola Kopac; Ursula Ellis; Patricia Birch; Shelin Adam; Jan M Friedman; Amy Nisselle; Alison M Elliott; Larry D Lynd Journal: Genet Med Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Mariska de Wit; Bedra Horreh; Carel T J Hulshof; Haije Wind; Angela G E M de Boer Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Brenda J Wilson; Rafat Islam; Jill J Francis; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Joanne A Permaul; Judith E Allanson; Sean Blaine; Ian D Graham; Wendy S Meschino; Craig R Ramsay; June C Carroll Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 4.246