Advanced

Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners' educational priorities in European countries

Julian-Reynier, Claire; Nippert, Irma; Calefato, Jean-Marc; Harris, Hilary; Kristoffersson, Ulf LU ; Schmidtke, Joerg; Ten Kate, Leo; Anionwu, Elizabeth; Benjamin, Caroline and Challen, Kirsty, et al. (2008) In Genetics in Medicine 10(2). p.107-113
Abstract
Purpose: To assess how general practitioners (GPs) from European countries prioritized their genetic educational needs according to their geographic, sociodemographic, and educational characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional survey, random and total samples of GPs in five European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom), mailed questionnaires; Outcome: Genetic Educational Priority Scale (30 items; six subscores). Results: A total 1168 GPs answered. Priorities differed (P < 0.001) but were consistently ranked across the countries. Previous education had a marginal effect on priorities. Women gave higher priorities than men to Genetics of Common Disorders (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 2.5; 95% confidence... (More)
Purpose: To assess how general practitioners (GPs) from European countries prioritized their genetic educational needs according to their geographic, sociodemographic, and educational characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional survey, random and total samples of GPs in five European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom), mailed questionnaires; Outcome: Genetic Educational Priority Scale (30 items; six subscores). Results: A total 1168 GPs answered. Priorities differed (P < 0.001) but were consistently ranked across the countries. Previous education had a marginal effect on priorities. Women gave higher priorities than men to Genetics of Common Disorders (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.8), Psychosocial and Counseling Issues (ORadj, 1.6(adj); 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), and Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues (ORadj, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), but lower than men to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (ORadj, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9). Older physicians gave higher priorities to Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations (ORadj, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), and to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (ORadj: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), compared with their younger colleagues. Conclusions: Expressed genetic educational needs vary according to the countries and sociodemographics. In accordance, training could be more focused on genetics of common disorders and on how to approach genetic risk in clinical practice rather than on ethics, hew technologies, or basic concepts. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
physicians, education, genetics
in
Genetics in Medicine
volume
10
issue
2
pages
107 - 113
publisher
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
external identifiers
  • wos:000253277400005
  • scopus:39449098569
ISSN
1098-3600
DOI
10.1097/GIM.Ob013e3181616693
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
bb7f1d48-3b38-40a1-a3e1-0613f1fffcb0 (old id 1196551)
date added to LUP
2008-09-10 11:59:20
date last changed
2017-02-19 03:37:59
@article{bb7f1d48-3b38-40a1-a3e1-0613f1fffcb0,
  abstract     = {Purpose: To assess how general practitioners (GPs) from European countries prioritized their genetic educational needs according to their geographic, sociodemographic, and educational characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional survey, random and total samples of GPs in five European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom), mailed questionnaires; Outcome: Genetic Educational Priority Scale (30 items; six subscores). Results: A total 1168 GPs answered. Priorities differed (P &lt; 0.001) but were consistently ranked across the countries. Previous education had a marginal effect on priorities. Women gave higher priorities than men to Genetics of Common Disorders (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.8), Psychosocial and Counseling Issues (ORadj, 1.6(adj); 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), and Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues (ORadj, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8), but lower than men to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (ORadj, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9). Older physicians gave higher priorities to Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations (ORadj, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), and to Techniques and Innovation in Genetics (ORadj: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7), compared with their younger colleagues. Conclusions: Expressed genetic educational needs vary according to the countries and sociodemographics. In accordance, training could be more focused on genetics of common disorders and on how to approach genetic risk in clinical practice rather than on ethics, hew technologies, or basic concepts.},
  author       = {Julian-Reynier, Claire and Nippert, Irma and Calefato, Jean-Marc and Harris, Hilary and Kristoffersson, Ulf and Schmidtke, Joerg and Ten Kate, Leo and Anionwu, Elizabeth and Benjamin, Caroline and Challen, Kirsty and Plass, Anne-Marie and Harris, Rodney},
  issn         = {1098-3600},
  keyword      = {physicians,education,genetics},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {107--113},
  publisher    = {Lippincott Williams & Wilkins},
  series       = {Genetics in Medicine},
  title        = {Genetics in clinical practice: general practitioners' educational priorities in European countries},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GIM.Ob013e3181616693},
  volume       = {10},
  year         = {2008},
}