PURPOSE: Health-care professionals need to be trained to work with whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in their practice. Our aim was to explore how students responded to a novel genome analysis course that included the option to analyze their own genomes. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study. Questionnaires were administered before (T3) and after the genome analysis course (T4), as well as 6 months later (T5). In-depth interviews were conducted at T5. RESULTS: All students (n = 19) opted to analyze their own genomes. At T5, 12 of 15 students stated that analyzing their own genomes had been useful. Ten reported they had applied their knowledge in the workplace. Technical WGS knowledge increased (mean of 63.8% at T3, mean of 72.5% at T4; P = 0.005). In-depth interviews suggested that analyzing their own genomes may increase students' motivation to learn and their understanding of the patient experience. Most (but not all) of the students reported low levels of WGS results-related distress and low levels of regret about their decision to analyze their own genomes. CONCLUSION: Giving students the option of analyzing their own genomes may increase motivation to learn, but some students may experience personal WGS results-related distress and regret. Additional evidence is required before considering incorporating optional personal genome analysis into medical education on a large scale.
PURPOSE: Health-care professionals need to be trained to work with whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in their practice. Our aim was to explore how students responded to a novel genome analysis course that included the option to analyze their own genomes. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study. Questionnaires were administered before (T3) and after the genome analysis course (T4), as well as 6 months later (T5). In-depth interviews were conducted at T5. RESULTS: All students (n = 19) opted to analyze their own genomes. At T5, 12 of 15 students stated that analyzing their own genomes had been useful. Ten reported they had applied their knowledge in the workplace. Technical WGS knowledge increased (mean of 63.8% at T3, mean of 72.5% at T4; P = 0.005). In-depth interviews suggested that analyzing their own genomes may increase students' motivation to learn and their understanding of the patient experience. Most (but not all) of the students reported low levels of WGS results-related distress and low levels of regret about their decision to analyze their own genomes. CONCLUSION: Giving students the option of analyzing their own genomes may increase motivation to learn, but some students may experience personal WGS results-related distress and regret. Additional evidence is required before considering incorporating optional personal genome analysis into medical education on a large scale.
Authors: Shannon Rego; Orit Dagan-Rosenfeld; Stephanie A Bivona; Michael P Snyder; Kelly E Ormond Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Stuart A Scott; Aniwaa Owusu Obeng; Mariana R Botton; Yao Yang; Erick R Scott; Stephen B Ellis; Richard Wallsten; Tom Kaszemacher; Xiang Zhou; Rong Chen; Paola Nicoletti; Hetanshi Naik; Eimear E Kenny; Aida Vega; Eva Waite; George A Diaz; Joel Dudley; Jonathan L Halperin; Lisa Edelmann; Andrew Kasarskis; Jean-Sébastien Hulot; Inga Peter; Erwin P Bottinger; Kurt Hirschhorn; Pamela Sklar; Judy H Cho; Robert J Desnick; Eric E Schadt Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Michael D Linderman; Ali Bashir; George A Diaz; Andrew Kasarskis; Saskia C Sanderson; Randi E Zinberg; Milind Mahajan; Hardik Shah; Sabrina Suckiel; Micol Zweig; Eric E Schadt Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Michael D Linderman; Saskia C Sanderson; Ali Bashir; George A Diaz; Andrew Kasarskis; Randi Zinberg; Milind Mahajan; Sabrina A Suckiel; Micol Zweig; Eric E Schadt Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 3.063