TABLE 2: Summary of major findings of the included 44 studies
Authors
Location
Participants
Study design
Main results
Prows and Latta, 1995
United States
28 staff-registered nurses from a childrens hospital medical center.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Not reported
Pre/post design with three-, six- and 12 month follow-ups
Knowledge:
Knowledge significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores.
Practice behavior:
Total number of genetic services continuously increased in three- and six-month follow-ups.
Program assessment:
Comments about the workshop were generally positive.
Although overall positive response, mixed comments about the preceptorship.
Huang et al., 1997
Taiwan
361 community health nurses and 74 maternal-child nurses.
Age: Median age = 30 years old (range 2047), for community health nurses and median age = 25 years old (range 2238) for maternal-child nurses
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Not reported
One-shot case study/descriptive cross-sectional
Knowledge:
Significantly higher scores for community health nurses versus maternal-child nurses.
Kolb et al., 1999
United States
121 primary healthcare providers from community health clinics (n = 85 registered nurses, n = 19 physicians, n = 8 vocational nurses, n = 8 social workers, and n = 1 dietitian).
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Not reported
Pre/post design
Knowledge:
Significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores.
Attitudes:
Significantly improved toward providing genetic services from pre-test to post-test scores.
Gaff et al., 2001
Australia
10 oncology nurses attended a cancer genetics resource training course.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Not reported
One-shot case study/descriptive cross-sectional with 6-month follow-up
Skills:
Counseling skills increased.
Practice behavior:
Increased genetics practice behavior (e.g., referring patients to an appropriate provider and applying new skills in practice).
Program assessment:
General satisfaction with the course (e.g. content usefulness, quality of teaching, relevance to work).
Swank et al., 2001
United States
100 registered nurses working at 177 reproductive health centers completed the baseline study (pre-test). Among them, 65 completed the post-test survey.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Practicing nurses for 16.9 years on average (SD = 9.9, range: 135 years) and practicing IVF nurses for 5.8 years on average (SD = 4.7, range: 0.116 years)
Pre/post design
Knowledge:
Significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores.
Self-efficacy:
Significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores in identifying egg donors genetic risks.
Program assessment:
Exceptionally positive comments regarding the education in various aspects (e.g., content, format, and meeting learning objectives). Suggestions came from several participants regarding specific topics and delivery methods for future education.
Masny et al., 2003
United States
164 oncology nurses, who had more than 2 years of experience in oncology, were recruited by mail and word of mouth in five U.S. states to attend the familial cancer risk assessment course and completed a baseline survey. 141 nurses completed a post-test evaluation for the changes of cancer genetics knowledge. 100 nurses completed a post-test survey 6 months later for assessing the nurses role in the cancer risk assessment.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: 11 years (range: 128 years)
Pre/post design with a 6-month follow- up
Knowledge:
Significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores.
Self-efficacy:
Significant increase from pre-test to six-month post-test in cancer family history taking, risk assessment based on family history, and follow-up recommendations.
Practice behavior:
Significant increase from pre-test to six-month post-test in collecting certain family histories and using certain methods to evaluate patients cancer risk. The number of participants that utilized the family pattern of cancer (p < .001) and information from genetic testing information (p 0.01) for communicating cancer risk also significantly increased.
Blazer et al., 2004
United States
710 community-based clinicians (mainly primary care physicians, gynecologists, oncologists, gastrointestinal specialists, and other physicians, nurses, and genetic counselors) attended either 1-hour seminars or a full-day conference. 69 clinicians completed the long-term (11-month) follow-up survey.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Not reported
Pre/post design with an 11-month follow-up
Knowledge:
Significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores for physicians, nurses, and genetic counselors.
Practice behavior:
Follow-up survey indicated that overall 1) 77% of participants used course information and referral guidelines to counsel patients about risk or to refer patients for further risk assessment and 2) 80% of participants shared the information with other clinicians.
Program assessment:
General satisfaction with the curriculum (e.g., content, delivery, and relevance to practice).
Blazer et al., 2005
United States
23 genetic counselors, 14 advanced practitioner nurses, and 3 physicians in clinical genetics practice passed a competitive selection process to attend the cancer genetics education program. Attendees filled out the post-course survey 6 months (n = 35) and 1 year (n = 29) after the program.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Not reported
Pre/post design with 6-month and one-year follow-up
Knowledge:
Significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores.
Self-efficacy:
One year after the course, participants stated that the educational experience increased their self-efficacy in cancer genetics practice (76%) and cancer risk assessment and recommendation skills (62%).
Practice behavior:
One year after the course, 35 participants were actively practicing cancer risk assessment and 19 saw more patients for cancer risk assessments.
Program assessment:
General satisfaction with the course among participants.
Macri et al., 2005
United States
28 obstetrician-gynecologist residents at an urban, university-based residency program.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Not reported
Pre/post design
Knowledge:
Significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores.
Self-efficacy:
Majority of the participants indicated that the training enhanced their confidence in family history taking, pedigree drawing, Web-based resource searching, and patient counseling.
Program assessment:
Most participants highly rated the program.
Bodzin, 2005
United States
41 health professionals (52% working in public health practice/research, 24% healthcare provision, and other fields such as nursing, education, counseling, and basic sciences) watched the Module 1 of Six Weeks to Genomics Awareness Web-based training.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: Majority (63%) more than 10 years
One-shot case study/descriptive cross-sectional
Knowledge
On a 10-point scale, participants reported about a 7-point score, indicating that the training enhanced their genomics knowledge.
Self-efficacy
Majority of the participants did not feel confident enough to apply knowledge to their practice settings.
Program assessment:
Most participants highly rated the module.
Bell et al., 2007
United States
171 nurses (mainly registered nurses working in an acute care setting) attended a regional psychiatric conference entitled, Mental Health Nursing and Genomics. 119 completed both pre- and immediate post-conference surveys, and 59 filled out a 3-month follow-up survey.
Age: Not reported
Race/Ethnicity: Not reported
Years of practice: More than 9 years
Pre/post design with a 3-month follow-up
Knowledge:
Significantly increased from pre-test to post-test scores and was maintained from the post-test to the follow-up.
Practice behavior:
From the pre-test to follow-up, there was an increase in using genomics information for self-education (~30% increase), patient education (10% increase), and education for colleagues (29% increase).
From the pre-test to the follow-up, there was an increase in positive response to this statement: the patient population with whom I work has experienced genetic testing.
Clyman et al., 2007
United States
143 general practitioners (68 physicians and 75 family practice residents) at the Mid-Hudson Family Health Institute
Age: Not reported
