Page 94 - Read Online

Maher et al. J Transl Genet Genom 2023;7:94-109 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/jtgg.2023.04 Page 88

Education participants and evaluation sample
All education activities reached capacity.

Specialty workshops
A total of 414 health professionals attended a specialty workshop (20-43 per workshop). Respondents to the
baseline workshop survey (n = 200) were mainly Consultants (48%) or Trainees (37%) in each specialty
[Supplementary Table 3]. Two-thirds (67%) reported having no formal genetics training; those who did cite
lectures at university (65%) or during basic medical training (26%). Over two-thirds (69%) had ordered or
interpreted genetic or genomic tests in their practice, most often ordering single gene (78%) or chromosome
tests (66%), with 46% ordering an exome/genome test. Of those who had not previously used genetic or
genomic testing, 70% anticipated doing so in the future.

Workshop participants also responded to surveys at the completion of education (n = 214) and follow-up
(n = 33; Figure 1).

Blended learning course
One hundred and four health professionals registered for the blended learning course, with all 86 engaging
with at least one part of the program. Sixty-one registrants accessed the online modules, averaging 26 min
per module; 29 participants completed all four modules. Seventy-one registrants attended workshops
(pediatric germline, n = 32; adult germline, n = 23; cancer, n = 27), with 11 of those attending two
workshops (pediatric plus cancer; adult plus cancer). Those who completed baseline surveys (n = 63) were
mainly Consultants (52%) and Trainees (46%) from varied specialties [Supplementary Table 3]. In contrast
to specialty workshop attendees, most (98%) blended learning course participants reported no formal
genetics training. Approximately two-thirds (68%) had previously used genetic or genomic testing in their
practice, most often ordering single gene tests (74%) or multigene panel tests (74%), and 33% had ordered
exome/genome tests. 80% of those who had not previously used genomic testing anticipated doing so in the
future.

Blended learning course participants also responded to surveys after accessing the online modules (post-
online, n = 38), completion of education program (n = 63), and follow-up (n = 15; Figure 1). As paired
survey responses were only completed by 29 participants, unpaired analyses were used. (Paired survey data
are provided in Supplementary Figure 2 and showed the same trends as unmatched responses, suggesting
that our findings may reflect individual gains.)

Impact of the education programs on confidence, understanding, skills and attitudes
Confidence in understanding and following genomic processes
Respondents rated their confidence in the understanding of five aspects of genomic testing processes
[Figure 2]. Confidence increased from baseline in all aspects after both the specialty workshop and blended
learning course. For specialty workshops, confidence increased from baseline to completion (P < 0.001 for
all processes). For the blended learning course, confidence increased from baseline to post-online (P < 0.001
for all processes), with further post-workshop gains in confidence for all processes (P < 0.02) except “referral
pathways” (P = 0.057). At follow-up, mean confidence remained above baseline levels for all processes for
both programs (workshops P < 0.001; blended P < 0.02). Comparing change in confidence from completion
to follow-up after specialty workshops, there was no significant decrease in confidence for phenotyping
(P = 0.208) and referral pathways (P = 0.280; Figure 2A). For blended learning, confidence was maintained
only for referral pathways (P = 0.193; Figure 2B).