Sharon Mitchell, Felix M Schmitz, Janusz Janczukowicz, Ann-Lea Buzzi, Noëlle Haas, Tanja Hitzblech, Julia Wagenfuehr, Idris Guessous, Sissel Guttormsen
{"title":"教育设计重要吗?基于证据的继续教育干预对初级保健基因组检测的评价前测后测研究。","authors":"Sharon Mitchell, Felix M Schmitz, Janusz Janczukowicz, Ann-Lea Buzzi, Noëlle Haas, Tanja Hitzblech, Julia Wagenfuehr, Idris Guessous, Sissel Guttormsen","doi":"10.1080/28338073.2025.2526234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>: Quality continuing education (CE) interventions should be effective, fit-for-purpose, and flexible for healthcare professionals. However, variability in the quality of reported interventions limits their impact. Education providers must ensure well-designed learning experiences to maximise efficiency and relevance. This study details the systematic design of a genomic testing learning intervention, incorporating practical exercises and aligning with educational principles to evaluate its impact on knowledge acquisition, self-efficacy, and skills performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>: The intervention, conducted in a skills laboratory in Bern, Switzerland, included an interactive online learning module based on learning science principles. Participants engaged in simulated patient (SP) encounters to apply their skills, followed by an informal debriefing session with SPs and content experts. A pre-test post-test study design measured applied knowledge (patient scenario test), self-efficacy (confidence ratings), and skills performance (SP assessments). Wilcoxon tests assessed improvements, Mann-Whitney U tests identified group differences, and Pearson's r calculated effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>: Sixteen participants enrolled, including general practitioners (<i>n</i> = 8) and 4th year medical students (<i>n</i> = 8). In total, the balance of female/male participants was 9(=female)/7(=male), with an overall age of <i>M</i> = 35.9. After the intervention, participants had significantly higher applied knowledge scores (<i>W</i> = 98, |<i>z</i>| = 2.89, <i>p</i> = .004; <i>r</i> = .72), self-reported significantly higher confidence in genomic testing skills (<i>W</i> = 134, |<i>z</i>| = 3.41, <i>p</i> < .001; <i>r</i> = 0.85) and had significantly higher skills performance scores (<i>W</i> = 107, |<i>z</i>| = 2.02, <i>p</i> = .044; <i>r</i> = .50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>: A well-designed learning intervention in genomic testing significantly improved applied knowledge, self-efficacy and skills performance in primary care. These findings underscore the importance of structured CE programmes, highlighting instructional design as a key factor in optimising learning outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":73675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of CME","volume":"14 1","pages":"2526234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12281646/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Education Design Matter? Evaluating an Evidence-Based Continuing Education Intervention on Genomic Testing for Primary Care; a Pre-Test Post-Test Study.\",\"authors\":\"Sharon Mitchell, Felix M Schmitz, Janusz Janczukowicz, Ann-Lea Buzzi, Noëlle Haas, Tanja Hitzblech, Julia Wagenfuehr, Idris Guessous, Sissel Guttormsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/28338073.2025.2526234\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>: Quality continuing education (CE) interventions should be effective, fit-for-purpose, and flexible for healthcare professionals. However, variability in the quality of reported interventions limits their impact. Education providers must ensure well-designed learning experiences to maximise efficiency and relevance. This study details the systematic design of a genomic testing learning intervention, incorporating practical exercises and aligning with educational principles to evaluate its impact on knowledge acquisition, self-efficacy, and skills performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>: The intervention, conducted in a skills laboratory in Bern, Switzerland, included an interactive online learning module based on learning science principles. Participants engaged in simulated patient (SP) encounters to apply their skills, followed by an informal debriefing session with SPs and content experts. A pre-test post-test study design measured applied knowledge (patient scenario test), self-efficacy (confidence ratings), and skills performance (SP assessments). Wilcoxon tests assessed improvements, Mann-Whitney U tests identified group differences, and Pearson's r calculated effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>: Sixteen participants enrolled, including general practitioners (<i>n</i> = 8) and 4th year medical students (<i>n</i> = 8). In total, the balance of female/male participants was 9(=female)/7(=male), with an overall age of <i>M</i> = 35.9. After the intervention, participants had significantly higher applied knowledge scores (<i>W</i> = 98, |<i>z</i>| = 2.89, <i>p</i> = .004; <i>r</i> = .72), self-reported significantly higher confidence in genomic testing skills (<i>W</i> = 134, |<i>z</i>| = 3.41, <i>p</i> < .001; <i>r</i> = 0.85) and had significantly higher skills performance scores (<i>W</i> = 107, |<i>z</i>| = 2.02, <i>p</i> = .044; <i>r</i> = .50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>: A well-designed learning intervention in genomic testing significantly improved applied knowledge, self-efficacy and skills performance in primary care. These findings underscore the importance of structured CE programmes, highlighting instructional design as a key factor in optimising learning outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of CME\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"2526234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12281646/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of CME\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2025.2526234\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2025.2526234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:高质量的继续教育(CE)干预措施对于医疗保健专业人员来说应该是有效的、符合目的的和灵活的。然而,报告的干预措施质量的差异限制了它们的影响。教育提供者必须确保精心设计的学习体验,以最大限度地提高效率和相关性。本研究详细介绍了基因组测试学习干预的系统设计,结合实践练习并与教育原则保持一致,以评估其对知识获取、自我效能和技能表现的影响。方法:在瑞士伯尔尼的一个技能实验室进行的干预包括一个基于学习科学原理的交互式在线学习模块。参与者参与模拟病人(SP)的遭遇,以应用他们的技能,随后与SP和内容专家进行非正式的汇报会议。测试前测试后的研究设计测量了应用知识(患者情景测试)、自我效能(信心评级)和技能表现(SP评估)。Wilcoxon检验评估改善程度,Mann-Whitney U检验确定组间差异,Pearson r检验计算效果大小。结果:16名参与者入组,包括全科医生(n = 8)和四年级医学生(n = 8)。总的来说,女性/男性参与者的比例为9(=女性)/7(=男性),总体年龄M = 35.9。干预后,被试的应用知识得分显著提高(W = 98, | = 2.89, p = 0.004;r = 0.72),自我报告的基因组测试技能信心显著提高(W = 134, |z| = 3.41, p r = 0.85),技能表现得分显著提高(W = 107, |z| = 2.02, p = 0.044;R = .50)。结论:精心设计的基因组检测学习干预可显著提高初级保健人员的应用知识、自我效能感和技能表现。这些发现强调了结构化教育课程的重要性,强调了教学设计是优化学习成果的关键因素。
Does Education Design Matter? Evaluating an Evidence-Based Continuing Education Intervention on Genomic Testing for Primary Care; a Pre-Test Post-Test Study.
Background: : Quality continuing education (CE) interventions should be effective, fit-for-purpose, and flexible for healthcare professionals. However, variability in the quality of reported interventions limits their impact. Education providers must ensure well-designed learning experiences to maximise efficiency and relevance. This study details the systematic design of a genomic testing learning intervention, incorporating practical exercises and aligning with educational principles to evaluate its impact on knowledge acquisition, self-efficacy, and skills performance.
Methods: : The intervention, conducted in a skills laboratory in Bern, Switzerland, included an interactive online learning module based on learning science principles. Participants engaged in simulated patient (SP) encounters to apply their skills, followed by an informal debriefing session with SPs and content experts. A pre-test post-test study design measured applied knowledge (patient scenario test), self-efficacy (confidence ratings), and skills performance (SP assessments). Wilcoxon tests assessed improvements, Mann-Whitney U tests identified group differences, and Pearson's r calculated effect sizes.
Results: : Sixteen participants enrolled, including general practitioners (n = 8) and 4th year medical students (n = 8). In total, the balance of female/male participants was 9(=female)/7(=male), with an overall age of M = 35.9. After the intervention, participants had significantly higher applied knowledge scores (W = 98, |z| = 2.89, p = .004; r = .72), self-reported significantly higher confidence in genomic testing skills (W = 134, |z| = 3.41, p < .001; r = 0.85) and had significantly higher skills performance scores (W = 107, |z| = 2.02, p = .044; r = .50).
Conclusion: : A well-designed learning intervention in genomic testing significantly improved applied knowledge, self-efficacy and skills performance in primary care. These findings underscore the importance of structured CE programmes, highlighting instructional design as a key factor in optimising learning outcomes.