Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Web-Based Case Conferencing on Cancer Genetics Training Outcomes for Community-Based Clinicians

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Technology and market forces are driving the demand for cancer risk assessment services in the community setting, where few clinicians are trained to order and interpret predictive genetic tests. City of Hope conducts a three-phase course in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for community-based clinicians, comprised of distance didactics, face-to-face workshops, and 12 months of professional development. As designed, the course cannot meet increasing demands for GCRA training. Action research identified face-to-face workshops as a barrier to increasing course capacity. This study compared the learning effectiveness of Web-based case conferencing to face-to-face training.

Methods

A quasi-experimental design compared pre- to post-knowledge, skills, and professional self-efficacy outcomes from 2009 to 2010 course cohorts (n = 96). The intervention group (n = 52) engaged in Web-based case conferences during distance learning; the comparison group (n = 44) participated in the course as originally designed.

Results

Both groups and all practice disciplines demonstrated significant pre- to post-increases on all measures. Knowledge increases were higher for the intervention group (p < 0.015); skills and self-efficacy increases were comparable between groups (p < 0.33 and p < 0.30, respectively).

Discussion

Findings support the learning utility of Web-based case conferencing. Further studies may inform the development of tools to assess the impact of Web-based case conferencing on practice change and patient outcomes, in alignment with the highest standards of continuing professional development.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The option of recorded sessions was included in response to feedback from course alumni who reported that the fixed mid-week timeslot for working group posed a barrier to participation due to conflicting clinical schedules.

  2. In compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements for patient privacy and confidentiality, all patient-related materials and discussion conducted during Working Group are completely anonymized, and recorded sessions are delivered as password-protected streaming media that cannot be downloaded, copied, or disseminated to nonparticipants.

References

  1. Ng PC, Murray SS, Levy S et al (2009) An agenda for personalized medicine. Nature 461(7265):724–726. doi:10.1038/461724a

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Murphy SAR, Freed JS (2008) Healthcare’s ascension to patient-centered genomic care. Pers Med 5(5):505–509. doi:10.2217/17410541.5.5.505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vadaparampil ST, Wideroff L, Olson L et al (2005) Physician exposure to and attitudes toward advertisements for genetic tests for inherited cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet 135A(1):41–46. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.30681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Weitzel JN, Blazer KR, MacDonald DJ et al (2011) Genetics, genomics and cancer risk assessment: state of the art and future directions in the era of personalized medicine. CA Cancer J Clin 61(5):327–359. doi:10.3322/caac.20128

    Google Scholar 

  5. Caffarella RS, Merriam SB (1999) Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide, 2nd edn. Josey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis D, O’Brien MA, Freemantle N et al (1999) Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? JAMA 282(9):867–874. doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD et al (1995) Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 274(9):700–705. doi:10.1001/jama.274.9.700

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mansouri M, Lockyer J (2007) A meta-analysis of continuing medical education effectiveness. J Contin Educ Health Prof 27(1):6–15. doi:10.1002/chp.088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tian J, Atkinson NL, Portnoy B et al (2007) A systematic review of evaluation in formal continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof 27(1):16–27. doi:10.1002/chp.089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Spivey BE (2005) Continuing medical education in the United States: why it needs reform and how we propose to accomplish it. J Contin Educ Health Prof 25(3):134–143. doi:10.1002/chp.20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bennett N, Davis D, Easterling W et al (2000) Continuing medical education: a new vision of the professional development of physicians. Acad Med 75(12):1167–1172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. IOM (Institute of Medicine) (2010) Redesigning continuing education in the health professions. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12704.html. Accessed June 1, 2010

  13. Miller SH (2005) American Board of Medical Specialties and repositioning for excellence in lifelong learning: maintenance of certification. J Contin Educ Health Prof 25(3):151–156. doi:10.1002/chp.22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Blazer KR, MacDonald DJ, Ricker C et al (2005) Outcomes from intensive training in genetic cancer risk counseling for clinicians. Genet Med 7(1):40–47. doi:10.1097/01.GIM.0000151154.27612.49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Blazer KR, MacDonald DJ, Culver JO et al (2011) Personalized cancer genetics training for personalized medicine: improving community-based healthcare through a genetically literate workforce. Genet Med 13(9):832–840. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821882b7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Blazer KR, Sand S, Hilario J, et al. (2009) Using action research to evaluate and innovate a program of personalized cancer genetics training for personalized medicine. Paper presented at the AACE international cancer education conference: the art and science of cancer education and evaluation, Houston, TX

  17. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder W (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  20. Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics Health and Society (SACGHS) (2011) Genetics education and training: report of the secretary’s advisory committee on genetics, health, and society. Available at: http://oba.od.nih.gov/SACGHS/sacghs_home.html. Accessed January 3, 2011

  21. The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) Social Issues Committee, The American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) Social–Ethical and Legal Issues Committee (2000) ASHG/ACMG statement. Genetic testing in adoption. Am J Hum Genet 66:761–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2007) Cancer-related genetic testing and counseling: workshop proceedings. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog/11971.html. Accessed July 1, 2007

  23. Daly MB, Axilbund JE, Buys S et al (2010) Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8(5):562–594

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. National Cancer Institute (NCI) (2010) Cancer genetics overview (PDQ): genetic resources. Available at: www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/pdq/genetics/overview/HealthProfessional/page5. Accessed Dec. 29, 2010

  25. Reynolds PP, Benkendorf JL (1999) Genes and generalists: why we need professionals with added competencies. West J Med 171:375–379

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwartz MD, Valdimarsdottir HB, DeMarco TA et al (2009) Randomized trial of a decision aid for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: impact on measures of decision making and satisfaction. Health Psychol 28(1):11–19. doi:10.1037/a0013147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191–215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bandura A (1982) The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatr 13(3):195–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Slotnick HB (1996) How doctors learn: the role of clinical problems across the medical school-to-practice continuum. Acad Med 71(1):28–34. doi:10.1097/00001888-199601000-00014

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. ACCME (2008) Tools to support implementation of a monitoring system for regularly scheduled series (RRS). Available at: www.accme.org/dir_docs/doc_upload/62fa1df3-e304-408f-ade2-7919a27a4dc8_uploaddocument.pdf. Accessed November 22, 2009

  31. Onishi H (2008) Role of case presentation for teaching and learning activities. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 24(7):356–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Petty JK, Vetto JT (2002) Beyond doughnuts: tumor board recommendations influence patient care. J Canc Educ 17(2):97–100

    Google Scholar 

  33. Price DW, Felix KG (2008) Journal clubs and case conferences: from academic tradition to communities of practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof 28(3):123–130. doi:10.1002/chp.180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen C, et al. (2009) Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: a systematic review. Implement Sci 4(27). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-27

  35. Jackson MJ, Gallis HA, Gilman SC et al (2007) The need for specialty curricula based on core competencies: a white paper of the conjoint committee on continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof 27(2):124–128. doi:10.1002/chp.111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuehn BM (2010) IOM: improve clinician CME system. JAMA 303(8):716. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Leist JC, Green JS (2000) Congress 2000: a continuing medical education summit with implications for the future. J Contin Educ Health Prof 20(4):247–251. doi:10.1002/chp.1340200408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Leist JC (2003) Accreditation: standards for quality continuing professional development. J Vet Med Educ 30(1):13–18. doi:10.3138/jvme.30.1.13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research and education programs described in this manuscript were supported in part by National Cancer Institute GRANTS R25 CA75131, R25 CA112486 (including an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Supplement), 3R25 CA112486-05S1, R25 CA85771, and RC4 CA153828 (CCG community network: a sustainable research partnership), and by State of California Cancer Research Program Grant #99-86874. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Drs. Marvin Alkin, Noel Enyedy, and Linda Rose from UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies (GSEIS) and Michelle Fox, Department of Genetics, UCLA, whose diverse knowledge, experiences. and perspectives contributed to the study design; Hazel Mariveles, Gloria Nuñez, Stephanie Chin, and Katie Calcagno for assistance with program coordination and data collection; Tracy Sulkin for assistance with manuscript preparation; course faculty Carin Huizenga, Julie Culver, and Dr. Deborah MacDonald who contributed to the development and scoring of study instruments; and to the study participants who endured detailed assessments and shared valuable feedback about their learning experiences.

Conflict of interest

The authors state that they have no financial relationship with the funders.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Cancer Genetics, City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA

    Kathleen R. Blazer & Jeffrey N. Weitzel

  2. Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California Los Angeles, Moore Hall, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Christina Christie

  3. Vital Research, 6380 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1609, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA

    Gwen Uman

Authors
  1. Kathleen R. Blazer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Christie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gwen Uman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey N. Weitzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen R. Blazer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blazer, K.R., Christie, C., Uman, G. et al. Impact of Web-Based Case Conferencing on Cancer Genetics Training Outcomes for Community-Based Clinicians. J Canc Educ 27, 217–225 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0313-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0313-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation