Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

OB/GYN residents’ training, attitudes, and comfort level regarding genetics

  • Genetics
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

While the availability, utility, and complexity of genetic testing expands, limited information exists regarding obstetrician-gynecologist (OB/GYN) residents’ knowledge of genetics and confidence in providing genetic services. This study examined OB/GYN residents’ educational and clinical experiences with genetics during residency, personal attitudes regarding the value of genetics and its role in their practice, level of comfort with genetic counseling, and potential motivators for learning about genetics.

Methods

Eligible participants included residents currently enrolled in a CREOG-associated OB/GYN training program in the USA or Canada. A link to an anonymous 49-question RedCap survey was emailed to program coordinators in October 2017 to be forwarded to all OB/GYN residents.

Results

Eighty-two OB/GYN residents representing all postgraduate years of training completed the survey. Residents indicated learning about genetics through discussions with attending physicians, lectures/courses, and publications. While residents felt their attendings valued (81%) and were knowledgeable about (85%) genetics, 28% felt their attendings did not reinforce concepts that were learned in coursework. Residents valued staying informed about the field of genetics and felt providing genetic services was within their scope of practice; however, there were deficiencies in self-reported comfort level, particularly regarding hereditary cancer counseling. Residents cited accessibility of information as a top motivator to stay informed.

Conclusions

Clinically relevant, accessible didactic information about genetics reinforced in the clinical setting may increase residents’ level of comfort with providing genetic services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Access to data is restricted to certain individuals in accordance to IRB protocol.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Ashley EA. The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA. 2015;313(21):2119–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moyer VA, JM L. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(4):271–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Counseling about genetic testing and communication of genetic test results no. 693. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(4):e96–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Farrell RM, Agatisa PK, Mercer MB, Mitchum AG, Coleridge MB. The use of noninvasive prenatal testing in obstetric care: educational resources, practice patterns, and barriers reported by a national sample of clinicians. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(6):499–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Carrier screening for genetic conditions. Committee Opinion No. 691. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e41-55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mikat-Stevens NA, Larson IA, Tarini BA. Primary-care providers’ perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 2015;17(3):169–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sabatino SA, McCarthy EP, Phillips RS, Burns RB. Breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: provider attitudes, practices, and barriers. Cancer Detect Prev. 2007;31(5):375–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vig HS, Armstrong J, Egleston BL, et al. Cancer genetic risk assessment and referral patterns in primary care. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2009;13(6):735–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mainous AG, Johnson SP, Chirina S, Baker R. Academic family physicians’ perception of genetic testing and integration into practice: a CERA Study. Fam Med. 2013;45(4):257–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sussner KM, Jandorf L, Valdimarsdottir HB. Educational needs about cancer family history and genetic counseling for cancer risk among frontline healthcare clinicians in New York City. Genet Med. 2011;13(9):785–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Menzin AW, Anderson BL, Williams SB, Schulkin J. Education and experience with breast health maintenance and breast cancer care: a study of obstetricians and gynecologists. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25(1):87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Colicchia LC, Holland CL, Tarr JA, Rubio DM, Rothenberger SD, Chang JC. Patient-health care provider conversations about prenatal genetic screening: recommendation or personal choice. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(6):1145–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brierley KL, Campfield D, Ducaine W, et al. Errors in delivery of cancer genetics services: Implications for practice. Conn Med. 2010;74(7):413–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ready KJ, Daniels MS, Sun CC, Peterson SK, Northrup H, Lu KH. Obstetrics/gynecology residents’ knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and lynch syndrome. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25:401–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Access to genetic testing: position statement. https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Position-Statements/Access-to-Genetic-Testing. 2018. Accessed Feb 2018.

  16. Bloom BS. Effects of continuing medical education on improving physician clinical care and patient health: a review of systematic reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;21:3–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646230505049X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, et al. Achieving change in primary care–effectiveness of strategies for improving implementation of complex interventions: systematic review of reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009993. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009993.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mazmanian PE, Davis DA. Continuing medical education and the physician as a learner: guide to the evidence. JAMA. 2002;288(9):1057–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stone E, Morton S. Interventions that increase use of adult immunization and cancer screening services: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:641–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rayburn WF, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The obstetrician/gynecologist workforce in the United States: facts, figures, and implications 2011. Am Cong Obstet Gynecol. 2017.

  21. Association of American Medical Colleges. 2018 report on residents table B3: Number of active residents, by type of medical school, GME specialty, and sex. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/interactive-data/table-b3-number-active-residents-type-medical-school-gme-specialty-and-sex. 2018. Accessed 4 Aug 2021.

Download references

Funding

The research was conducted as part of a Master’s thesis project for the Northwestern University Graduate Program in Genetic Counseling. Funding for the study was provided by Northwestern University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Clinical Genetics, Chicago, IL, USA

    Anastasia Kathrens-Gallardo, Rachel Pothast & Catherine Wicklund

  2. BillionToOne, Inc, Medical Affairs, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Lauren Propst

  3. Rush Medical College, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chicago, IL, USA

    Edward Linn

  4. Myriad Women’s Health, Medical Affairs, South San Francisco, CA, USA

    Aishwarya Arjunan

Authors
  1. Anastasia Kathrens-Gallardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren Propst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward Linn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rachel Pothast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Wicklund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aishwarya Arjunan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Anastasia Kathrens-Gallardo. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Anastasia Kathrens-Gallardo, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aishwarya Arjunan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

AA and LP are or were employed by laboratories that offer genetic testing at the time of study. The other 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

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 69 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kathrens-Gallardo, A., Propst, L., Linn, E. et al. OB/GYN residents’ training, attitudes, and comfort level regarding genetics. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 2871–2880 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02310-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02310-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation