4.6 Article

Call for improvement in medical school training in genetics: results of a national survey

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 1151-1157

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01100-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R25CA168544]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The survey results indicate a lower perceived understanding of genetics among PGY1 pathology residents in the US, with less time spent learning genetics and lower quality training compared to control areas. The study suggests a need for improvement in medical school genetics education and promoting greater understanding of the role of genetics professionals in patient care.
Purpose To assess, from the student perspective, medical school training in genetics and genomics. Methods In 2019, the Undergraduate Training in Genomics (UTRIG) Working Group developed genetics-related survey and knowledge questions for the RISE-FIRST, an exam administered to postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pathology residents in the United States during their first months of training. Survey questions focused on perceived knowledge in genetics and the structure and quality of training with responses compared with those in control areas. Results There were 401 PGY1 pathology residents who took the 2019 RISE-FIRST (65% of those in the United States). There was significantly lower perceived understanding of genetics compared with nongenetics topics. Respondents also reported less time spent learning genetics and lower quality training compared with control areas. Only 53% indicated an interaction during medical school with a medical geneticist. Residents also did not perform as well on the UTRIG-developed knowledge questions than those in other areas of pathology. Conclusion The RISE-FIRST is a useful tool in assessing the current state of medical school training in genetics. This needs assessment may serve as a call to action to improve medical school genetics education and promote greater understanding of the role of genetics professionals in patient care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据