Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A scoping review of genomics education needs assessments and evaluations.

A health workforce capable of implementing genomic medicine requires effective genomics education. Genomics education interventions developed for health professions over the last two decades, and their impact, are variably described in the literature. To inform an evaluation framework for genomics education, we undertook an exploratory scoping review of published needs assessments for, and/or evaluations of, genomics education interventions for health professionals from 2000 to 2023. We retrieved and screened 4,659 records across the two searches with 363 being selected for full-text review and consideration by an interdisciplinary working group. 104 articles were selected for inclusion in the review-60 needs assessments, 52 genomics education evaluations, and eight describing both. Included articles spanned all years and described education interventions in over 30 countries. Target audiences included medical specialists, nurses/midwives, and/or allied health professionals. Evaluation questions, outcomes, and measures were extracted, categorized, and tabulated to iteratively compare measures across stages of genomics education evaluation: planning (pre-implementation), development and delivery (implementation), and impact (immediate, intermediate, or long-term outcomes). They are presented here along with descriptions of study designs. We document the wide variability in evaluation approaches and terminology used to define measures and note that few articles considered downstream (long-term) outcomes of genomics education interventions. Alongside the evaluation framework for genomics education, results from this scoping review form part of a toolkit to help educators to undertake rigorous genomics evaluation that is fit for purpose and can contribute to the growing evidence base of the contribution of genomics education in implementation strategies for genomic medicine.

Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A theory- and empirically informed evaluation framework.

Implementation of genomic medicine into healthcare requires a workforce educated through effective educational approaches. However, ascertaining the impact of genomics education activities or resources is limited by a lack of evaluation and inconsistent descriptions in the literature. We aim to support those developing genomics education to consider how best to capture evaluation data that demonstrate program outcomes and effectiveness within scope. Here, we present an evaluation framework that is adaptable to multiple settings for use by genomics educators with or without education or evaluation backgrounds. The framework was developed as part of a broader program supporting genomic research translation coordinated by the Australian Genomics consortium. We detail our mixed-methods approach involving an expert workshop, literature review and iterative expert input to reach consensus and synthesis of a new evaluation framework for genomics education. The resulting theory-informed and evidence-based framework encompasses evaluation across all stages of education program development, implementation and reporting, and acknowledges the critical role of stakeholders and the effects of external influences.

Measuring physician practice, preparedness and preferences for genomic medicine: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: Even as genomic medicine is implemented globally, there remains a lack of rigorous, national assessments of physicians' current genomic practice and continuing genomics education needs. The aim of this study was to address this gap. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey, informed by qualitative data and behaviour change theory, to assess the current landscape of Australian physicians' genomic medicine practice, perceptions of proximity and individual preparedness, and preferred models of practice and continuing education. The survey was advertised nationally through 10 medical colleges, 24 societies, 62 hospitals, social media, professional networks and snowballing. RESULTS: 409 medical specialists across Australia responded, representing 30 specialties (majority paediatricians, 20%), from mainly public hospitals (70%) in metropolitan areas (75%). Half (53%) had contacted their local genetics services and half (54%) had ordered or referred for a gene panel or exome/genome sequencing test in the last year. Two-thirds (67%) think genomics will soon impact their practice, with a significant preference for models that involved genetics services (p<0.0001). Currently, respondents mainly perform tasks associated with pretest family history taking and counselling, but more respondents expect to perform tasks at all stages of testing in the future, including tasks related to the test itself, and reporting results. While one-third (34%) recently completed education in genomics, only a quarter (25%) felt prepared to practise. Specialists would like (more) education, particularly on genomic technologies and clinical utility, and prefer this to be through varied educational strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides data from a breadth of physician specialties that can inform models of genetic service delivery and genomics education. The findings support education providers designing and delivering education that best meet learner needs to build a competent, genomic-literate workforce. Further analyses are underway to characterise early adopters of genomic medicine to inform strategies to increase engagement.

Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics).

PURPOSE: Widespread, quality genomics education for health professionals is required to create a competent genomic workforce. A lack of standards for reporting genomics education and evaluation limits the evidence base for replication and comparison. We therefore undertook a consensus process to develop a recommended minimum set of information to support consistent reporting of design, development, delivery, and evaluation of genomics education interventions. METHODS: Draft standards were derived from literature (25 items from 21 publications). Thirty-six international experts were purposively recruited for three rounds of a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness, utility, and design. RESULTS: The final standards include 18 items relating to development and delivery of genomics education interventions, 12 relating to evaluation, and 1 on stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSION: These Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics (RISE2 Genomics) are intended to be widely applicable across settings and health professions. Their use by those involved in reporting genomics education interventions and evaluation, as well as adoption by journals and policy makers as the expected standard, will support greater transparency, consistency, and comprehensiveness of reporting. Consequently, the genomics education evidence base will be more robust, enabling high-quality education and evaluation across diverse settings.

"It's something I've committed to longer term": The impact of an immersion program for physicians on adoption of genomic medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To foster implementation of genomic testing in medical care by providing a cadre of physicians with 'hands on' experience in genomics, positioning them as opinion leaders in their medical speciality. This paper presents qualitative evaluation of immediate outcomes, in particular its impact on peer interactions. METHODS: Program design and delivery was informed by implementation science, behavior change and experiential learning theories. Inductive content analysis of transcribed audio-recordings from semi-structured post-project interviews with all participants (n = 12) was conducted. RESULTS: Participants reported the immersion experience improved their genomic capability, established them as credible genomic experts within their speciality and altered their practice in genomic medicine. Participants reported strengthening and widening of peer-to-peer and interdisciplinary communication, with both passive diffusion and active dissemination of information to peers. Some also became a resource for genetic professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic immersion participants described elements which support sustained integration of an innovation, including immediate changes (e.g. use of genomic tests) and wider impacts (e.g. professional networks). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study supports a role for immersion as a successful strategy for enhancing engagement of non-geneticist physicians in genomics. Additional study is needed to understand how immersion experiences change the delivery of genomic services at the provider, practice and health system level.

Preparing Medical Specialists for Genomic Medicine: Continuing Education Should Include Opportunities for Experiential Learning.

With the demand for genomic investigations increasing, medical specialists will need to, and are beginning to, practice genomic medicine. The need for medical specialists from diverse specialties to be ready to appropriately practice genomic medicine is widely recognised, but existing studies focus on single specialties or clinical settings. We explored continuing education needs in genomic medicine of a wide range of medical specialists (excluding genetic specialists) from across Australia. Interviews were conducted with 86 medical specialists in Australia from diverse medical specialties. Inductive content analysis categorized participants by career stage and genomics experience. Themes related to education needs were identified through constant comparison and discussion between authors of emerging concepts. Our findings show that participants believe that experiential learning in genomic medicine is necessary to develop the confidence and skills needed for clinical care. The main themes reported are: tailoring of education to the specialty and the individual; peer interactions contextualizes knowledge; experience will aid in developing confidence and skills. In fact, avenues of gaining experience may result in increased engagement with continuing education in genomic medicine as specialists are exposed to relevant applications in their clinical practice. Participants affirmed the need for continuing education in genomic medicine but identified that it would need to be tailored to the specialty and the individual: one size does not fit all, so a multifaceted approached is needed. Participants infrequently attended formal continuing education in genomic medicine. More commonly, they reported experiential learning by observation, case-review or interacting with a "genomics champion" in their specialty, which contextualized their knowledge. Medical specialists anticipate that genomic medicine will become part of their practice which could lessen demand on the specialist genetic workforce. They expect to look to experts within their own medical specialty who have gained genomics expertise for specific and contextualized support as they develop the skills and confidence to practice genomic medicine. These findings highlight the need to include opportunities for experiential learning in continuing education. Concepts identified in these interviews can be tested with a larger sample of medical specialists to ascertain representativeness.