Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

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

Abstract

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Study design when developing reporting standards for genomics education and evaluation.
Fig. 2: Results of stage 1: literature review of genetics/genomics education, continuing medical education, and evaluation.
Fig. 3: Results of stages 2 and 3 to draft, review, and refine the reporting standards.

Data availability

Data are available in both the Results and Supplementary materials.

References

  1. 1.

    Slade, I. & Burton, H. Preparing clinicians for genomic medicine. Postgrad. Med. J. 92, 369 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Owusu Obeng, A. et al. Physician-reported benefits and barriers to clinical implementation of genomic medicine: a multi-site IGNITE-network survey. J. Pers. Med. 8, 24 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    White, S., Jacobs, C. & Phillips, J. Mainstreaming genetics and genomics: a systematic review of the barriers and facilitators for nurses and physicians in secondary and tertiary care. Genet. Med. 22, 1149–1155 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Amara, N., Blouin-Bougie, J., Bouthillier, D. & Simard, J. On the readiness of physicians for pharmacogenomics testing: an empirical assessment. Pharmacogenomics J. 18, 308–318 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Al Bakir, I., Sebepos-Rogers, G. M., Burton, H. & Monahan, K. J. Mainstreaming of genomic medicine in gastroenterology, present and future: a nationwide survey of UK gastroenterology trainees. BMJ Open. 9, e030505 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Nisselle, A. et al. Ensuring best practice in genomic education and evaluation: a program logic approach. Front. Genet. 10, 1057 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Talwar, D., Tseng, T. S., Foster, M., Xu, L. & Chen, L. S. Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review. Genet. Med. 19, 725–732 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Paneque, M., Turchetti, D., Jackson, L., Lunt, P., Houwink, E. & Skirton, H. A systematic review of interventions to provide genetics education for primary care. BMC Fam. Pract. 17, 89 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K. & Caruthers F. A. The Program Evaluation Standards: A Guide for Evaluators and Evaluation Users. (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2010).

  10. 10.

    Bossuyt, P. M. et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin. Chem. 61, 1446–1452 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G. & Moher, D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 1, 100–107 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ev, Elm, Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C. & Vandenbroucke, J. P. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int. J. Surg. 12, 1495–1499 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Tong, A., Sainsbury, P. & Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 19, 349–357 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6, e1000097 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Richards, S. et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med. 17, 405–424 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Popejoy, A. B. et al. Clinical genetics lacks standard definitions and protocols for the collection and use of diversity measures. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 107, 72–82 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hooker, G. W., Babu, D., Myers, M. F., Zierhut, H. & McAllister, M. Standards for the reporting of Genetic Counseling interventions in Research and Other Studies (GCIRS): an NSGC Task Force report. J. Genet. Couns. 26, 355–360 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    McKenna, H. P. The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing? J. Adv. Nurs. 19, 1221–1225 (1994).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Phillips, A. C. et al. Development and validation of the guideline for reporting evidence-based practice educational interventions and teaching (GREET). BMC Med. Educ. 16, 237 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Yarbrough, D. B. Developing the program evaluation utility standards: scholarly foundations and collaborative processes. Can. J. Program Eval. 31, 284–304 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Arksey, H. & O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8, 19–32 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Crellin, E., McClaren, B., Nisselle, A., Best, S., Gaff, C. & Metcalfe, S. Preparing medical specialists to practice genomic medicine: education an essential part of a broader strategy. Front. Genet. 10, 789 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Reed, E. K. et al. What works in genomics education: outcomes of an evidenced-based instructional model for community-based physicians. Genet. Med. 18, 737–745 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Paneque, M. et al. Implementing genetic education in primary care: the Gen-Equip programme. J. Community Genet. 8, 147–150 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Carroll, J. C. et al. GenetiKit: a randomized controlled trial to enhance delivery of genetics services by family physicians. Fam. Pract. 28, 615–623 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Houwink, E. J. et al. Sustained effects of online genetics education: a randomized controlled trial on oncogenetics. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 22, 310–316 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Houwink, E. J. et al. Effectiveness of oncogenetics training on general practitioners’ consultation skills: a randomized controlled trial. Genet. Med. 16, 45–52 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Formea, C. M. et al. Development and evaluation of a pharmacogenomics educational program for pharmacists. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 77, 10 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ha, V. T. D., Frizzo-Barker, J. & Chow-White, P. Adopting clinical genomics: a systematic review of genomic literacy among physicians in cancer care. BMC Med. Genomics. 11, 18 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jackson, L. et al. The Gen-Equip Project: evaluation and impact of genetics e-learning resources for primary care in six European languages. Genet. Med. 21, 718–726 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    MacDonald, G. Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health: A Checklist of Steps and Standards. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Australasian Evaluation Society. Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Evaluations. (Australian Evaluation Society, Melbourne, 2013).

  33. 33.

    Brookes, S. T. et al. Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development. Trials. 17, 409 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    McClaren, B. J. Cystic Fibrosis Cascade Carrier Testing in Victoria, Australia. (The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 2010).

  35. 35.

    Paquette-Warren, J., Tyler, M., Fournie, M. & Harris, S. B. The Diabetes Evaluation Framework for Innovative National Evaluations (DEFINE): construct and content validation using a modified Delphi method. Can. J. Diabetes. 41, 281–296 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2014).

  37. 37.

    Van Hecke, A., Duprez, V., Pype, P., Beeckman, D. & Verhaeghe, S. Criteria for describing and evaluating training interventions in healthcare professions—CRe-DEPTH. Nurse Educ. Today. 84, 104254 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    McClaren, B. J., King, E. A., Crellin, E., Gaff, C., Metcalfe, S. A. & Nisselle, A. Development of an evidence-based, theory-informed national survey of physician preparedness for genomic medicine and preferences for genomics continuing education. Front. Genet. 11, 59 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R. & Masia, B. B. Bloom Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. (Pearson Education, Boston, 1984).

  40. 40.

    Funnell, S. & Rogers, P. Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. (John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program and a grant from the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (GNT1113531). We thank Erin Crellin, The University of Melbourne, for her contributions to the early stages of this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

Conceptualization: C.G., H.J., M.Martyn, S.M., A.N. Data curation: M.J., N.K. Formal analysis: M.J., A.N. Funding acquisition: C.G., S.M. Investigation: A,B., J.B., K.B.S., M.B., S.B., J.C., M.C., A.D., K.D., V.D., D.G., G.G., R.G., M.J., B.K., D.K., K.K., M.L., A.Ma, J.M., A. Mallett, M. McCarthy, A. McEwen, S.M., N.M., A.N., C.P., C.Q., E.R., K.R., A.S., I.S., V.S., B.T., E.S.T., E.T., S.T., T.M.W. Methodology: C.G., H.J., M. Martyn, S.M., A.N. Project administration: M.J., N.K. Writing—original draft: C.G., M.J., A.N. Writing—review and editing: A.B., J.B., K.B.S., M.B., S.B., J.C., M.C., A.D., K.D., V.D., C.G., D.G., G.G., R.G., H.J., B.K., D.K., K.K., M.L., A. Ma., J.M., A. Mallett, M. Martyn, M. McCarthy, A.McEwen, B.M., N.M., S.M., A.N., C.P., C.Q., E.R., K.R., A.S., I.S., V.S., B.T., E.S.T., E.T., S.T., T.M.W. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clara Gaff.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nisselle, A., Janinski, M., Martyn, M. et al. Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics). Genet Med (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-021-01140-x

Download citation

Search

Quick links