June K Robinson1, Namita Jain2, Ashfaq A Marghoob3, William McGaghie4, Michael MacLean4, Pedram Gerami2, Brittney Hultgren5, Rob Turrisi5, Kimberly Mallett5, Gary J Martin6. 1. Department of Dermatology , Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. june-robinson@northwestern.edu. 2. Department of Dermatology , Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Dermatology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Hauppauge, NY, USA. 4. Department of Medical Education, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Biobehavioral Health and Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early detection of melanoma represents an opportunity to reduce the burden of disease among people at increased risk for melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To develop and demonstrate the efficacy of online training. DESIGN: Randomized educational trial. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care providers (PCPs). INTERVENTION: Mastery learning course with visual and dermoscopic assessment, diagnosis and management, and deliberate practice with feedback to reach a minimum passing standard. MAIN MEASURES: Pre-test/post-test diagnostic accuracy. Referral of concerning lesions for 3 months before and after the educational intervention. KEY RESULTS: Among the 89 PCPs, 89.8% were internal medicine physicians, and the remainder were physician assistants embedded in internists' practices. There were no differences between control and intervention groups regarding gender, age, race, or percentage of full-time PCPs. The control group had more PCPs who reported less than 5 years of practice (n = 18) than the intervention group (n = 6) (χ2 [6, n = 89] = 14.34, p = 0.03). PCPs in the intervention group answered more melanoma detection questions correctly on the post-test (M = 10.05, SE = 1.24) compared to control group PCPs (M = 7.11, SE = 0.24), and had fewer false-positive and no false-negative melanoma diagnoses (intervention, M = 1.09, SE = 0. 20; control, M = 3.1, SE = 0.23; ANCOVA, F[1,378] =27.86, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.26). PCPs who underwent training referred fewer benign lesions, including nevi, seborrheic keratoses, and dermatofibromas, than control PCPs (F[1,79] = 72.89, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.489; F[1,79] = 25.82, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.246; F[1,79] = 34.25, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.302; respectively). Those receiving training referred significantly more melanomas than controls (F[1,79] = 24.38, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.236). Referred melanomas (0.8 ± 0.07 per month for intervention, 0.17 ± 0.06 for control) were mostly located on the head and neck. CONCLUSIONS:Mastery learning improved PCPs' ability to detect melanoma on a standardized post-test and may improve referral of patients with suspected melanoma. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02385253.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Early detection of melanoma represents an opportunity to reduce the burden of disease among people at increased risk for melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To develop and demonstrate the efficacy of online training. DESIGN: Randomized educational trial. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care providers (PCPs). INTERVENTION: Mastery learning course with visual and dermoscopic assessment, diagnosis and management, and deliberate practice with feedback to reach a minimum passing standard. MAIN MEASURES: Pre-test/post-test diagnostic accuracy. Referral of concerning lesions for 3 months before and after the educational intervention. KEY RESULTS: Among the 89 PCPs, 89.8% were internal medicine physicians, and the remainder were physician assistants embedded in internists' practices. There were no differences between control and intervention groups regarding gender, age, race, or percentage of full-time PCPs. The control group had more PCPs who reported less than 5 years of practice (n = 18) than the intervention group (n = 6) (χ2 [6, n = 89] = 14.34, p = 0.03). PCPs in the intervention group answered more melanoma detection questions correctly on the post-test (M = 10.05, SE = 1.24) compared to control group PCPs (M = 7.11, SE = 0.24), and had fewer false-positive and no false-negative melanoma diagnoses (intervention, M = 1.09, SE = 0. 20; control, M = 3.1, SE = 0.23; ANCOVA, F[1,378] =27.86, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.26). PCPs who underwent training referred fewer benign lesions, including nevi, seborrheic keratoses, and dermatofibromas, than control PCPs (F[1,79] = 72.89, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.489; F[1,79] = 25.82, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.246; F[1,79] = 34.25, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.302; respectively). Those receiving training referred significantly more melanomas than controls (F[1,79] = 24.38, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.236). Referred melanomas (0.8 ± 0.07 per month for intervention, 0.17 ± 0.06 for control) were mostly located on the head and neck. CONCLUSIONS: Mastery learning improved PCPs' ability to detect melanoma on a standardized post-test and may improve referral of patients with suspected melanoma. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02385253.
Authors: Melody J Eide; Maryam M Asgari; Suzanne W Fletcher; Alan C Geller; Allan C Halpern; Waqas R Shaikh; Lingling Li; Gwen L Alexander; Andrea Altschuler; Stephen W Dusza; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Elizabeth A Quigley; Martin A Weinstock Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Jeffrey H Barsuk; Elaine R Cohen; Steven Potts; Hany Demo; Shanu Gupta; Joe Feinglass; William C McGaghie; Diane B Wayne Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Jacqueline M Goulart; Elizabeth A Quigley; Stephen Dusza; Sarah T Jewell; Gwen Alexander; Maryam M Asgari; Melody J Eide; Suzanne W Fletcher; Alan C Geller; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Martin A Weinstock; Allan C Halpern Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: June K Robinson; Jeffrey D Wayne; Mary C Martini; Brittney A Hultgren; Kimberly A Mallett; Rob Turrisi Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Laura K Ferris; Melissa I Saul; Yan Lin; Fei Ding; Martin A Weinstock; Alan C Geller; Jian-Min Yuan; Erica Neuren; Spandana Maddukuri; Francis X Solano; John M Kirkwood Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Gery P Guy; Cheryll C Thomas; Trevor Thompson; Meg Watson; Greta M Massetti; Lisa C Richardson Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Juliet A Usher-Smith; Jon Emery; Angelos P Kassianos; Fiona M Walter Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Niels Kvorning Ternov; T Vestergaard; L Rosenkrantz Hölmich; K Karmisholt; A L Wagenblast; H Klyver; M Hald; L Schøllhammer; L Konge; A H Chakera Journal: Arch Dermatol Res Date: 2020-06-28 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: June K Robinson; Michael MacLean; Rachel Reavy; Rob Turrisi; Kimberly Mallett; Gary J Martin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ashley E Brown; Maleka Najmi; Taylor Duke; Daniel A Grabell; Misha V Koshelev; Kelly C Nelson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Maleka Najmi; Ashley E Brown; Sarah R Harrington; David Farris; Sarah Sepulveda; Kelly C Nelson Journal: Arch Dermatol Res Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Valeria De Bedout; Natalie M Williams; Ana M Muñoz; Ana M Londoño; Manuela Munera; Natalí Naranjo; Lina M Rodriguez; Alejandra M Toro; Feng Miao; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Natalia Jaimes Journal: Dermatol Pract Concept Date: 2021-01-29