BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Given the increasing discussions of the impact of genetic medicine within family medicine, it is important to determine the most effective way of teaching this material to family medicine residents (FMRs). The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the impact of three methods of delivering primary care genetic content to FMRs. METHODS: Curriculum materials and assessment tools were created to teach and evaluate knowledge, skills, and attitudes around four core competencies in primary care genetics, with a focus on hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC). Participants were randomly allocated to four learning conditions: (1) no intervention (control), (2) web-based module outlining genetic concepts applied to CRC, (3) live presentation of the web-based material, (4) live presentation and subsequent standardized patient (SP) encounter. Three months later, all participants completed a written knowledge test, attitude survey, and a standardized patient-based performance assessment. RESULTS: Sixty FMRs completed the study. All three educational interventions resulted in significantly improved outcome measures in knowledge and skills but not attitudes, compared to control. There was no significant difference in outcomes between intervention groups. CONCLUSION: FMRs acquired knowledge and improved skills in genetic medicine with three educational methods. Resources such as faculty expertise in genetic medicine and cost should guide decisions on curricular development for this rapidly expanding field. This may be especially relevant for programs with distributed teaching sites.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Given the increasing discussions of the impact of genetic medicine within family medicine, it is important to determine the most effective way of teaching this material to family medicine residents (FMRs). The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the impact of three methods of delivering primary care genetic content to FMRs. METHODS: Curriculum materials and assessment tools were created to teach and evaluate knowledge, skills, and attitudes around four core competencies in primary care genetics, with a focus on hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC). Participants were randomly allocated to four learning conditions: (1) no intervention (control), (2) web-based module outlining genetic concepts applied to CRC, (3) live presentation of the web-based material, (4) live presentation and subsequent standardized patient (SP) encounter. Three months later, all participants completed a written knowledge test, attitude survey, and a standardized patient-based performance assessment. RESULTS: Sixty FMRs completed the study. All three educational interventions resulted in significantly improved outcome measures in knowledge and skills but not attitudes, compared to control. There was no significant difference in outcomes between intervention groups. CONCLUSION: FMRs acquired knowledge and improved skills in genetic medicine with three educational methods. Resources such as faculty expertise in genetic medicine and cost should guide decisions on curricular development for this rapidly expanding field. This may be especially relevant for programs with distributed teaching sites.