4.6 Article

Deficient knowledge of genetics relevant for daily practice among medical students nearing graduation

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 295-301

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/01.GIM.0000162877.87333.9A

Keywords

knowledge; genetics; medical students nearing graduation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate whether the knowledge of genetics relevant for daily practice among medical students nearing graduation in the Netherlands was sufficient to react appropriately to the change of relevance of genetics in medicine. Methods: A computer examination validated in a group of clinical geneticists, medical students nearing graduation, and nonmedical students. The examination consisted of 215 genetic questions classified by the designers into three categories of relevance: essential knowledge (requirement: > 95% correct answers), desirable knowledge (requirement: > 60% correct answers), and too specialized knowledge (no requirement). To set an independent standard, the questions were also judged by clinical geneticists and nongenetic health care providers in an Angoff procedure. In total, 291 medical students nearing graduation from seven out of the eight medical schools in the Netherlands participated. Results: As expected, the mean score for essential knowledge (71.63%, 95% CI 70.74-72.52) was higher than for desirable knowledge (55.99%, 95% CI 55.08-56.90); the mean score for too specialized knowledge (44.40%, 95% CI 43.19-45.62) was the lowest. According to passing scores set for essential knowledge as defined by the designers, the clinical geneticists, and the nongenetic health care providers, only 0%, 26%, and 3%, respectively, of the participants would have passed. Conclusions: Medical students nearing graduation lack genetic knowledge that is essential for daily practice. Therefore, changes should be made in the medical curricula.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available