The study aim was to evaluate the association between genetics referrals, training in medical school, residency, or continuing medical education and physician knowledge of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). A survey of 55 questions was administered to 140 physicians evaluating knowledge and practice patterns regarding HBOC. Physicians with genetics training during residency were more likely to recognize that most instances of ovarian cancer are not hereditary (odds ratio (OR) = 3.16; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.32, 7.58). Physicians with continuing medical education (CME) training on genetics were more likely to identify that screening can be improved for those with a hereditary mutation (OR = 4.28; 95 % CI 1.32, 13.90). Primary care physicians who frequently referred for genetics were more likely to recognize that maternal history is not more important than paternal history (OR = 2.51; 95 % CI 1.11, 5.66), that screening can be improved for those with hereditary risk (OR = 4.06; 95 % CI 1.08, 15.22), and that females with a hereditary breast cancer risk would have different recommendations for screening than someone without this risk (OR = 4.91; 95 % CI 1.04, 23.25). Our data suggest that training and frequency of genetics referrals may be associated with knowledge of general risk assessment for HBOC.

Background: Knowledge about hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) can aid cancer screening and prevention in high-risk patients. Genetic testing, once conducted primarily at academic centers, is now routinely performed in a variety of clinics. Nonacademic physicians may not be aware of hereditary CRC standards of care. Methods: From August to November 2012, a survey was administered to predominantly primary care physicians evaluating academic center affiliation, past training in genetics and knowledge regarding hereditary CRC. Results: One hundred forty physicians completed the survey. Knowledge of hereditary CRC was neither associated with academic affiliation nor with training during medical school or residency, but with continuing medical education (CME) training. Those with CME training were more likely to know that screening could be enhanced for patients with a hereditary cancer risk (OR = 4.49, 95% CI = 1.40-14.38) and that an individual with hereditary CRC would have different screening recommendations (OR = 7.49, 95% CI = 1.37-40.81). Residency training and CME training were associated with more frequent hereditary risk assessment. Conclusion: Genetics training may be associated with physicians' knowledge and assessment of hereditary CRC. Training at the CME level in particular may be integral to the delivery of genetic services in clinical practice.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the gold standard in hereditary cancer risk assessment, screening, and treatment. A minority of physicians follow NCCN guidelines for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. This study assesses the impact of an interventional educational program on HBOC in terms of knowledge. Physicians were sent an invite to join either an intervention survey (web-training offered prior to the knowledge survey) or control survey (web-training offered after the knowledge survey). Sixty-nine physicians in the intervention arm and 67 physicians in the control arm completed the survey. The interventional group regularly answered items correctly at a higher frequency than the control group. For example, 64.71% (n = 44) of physicians in the intervention group knew that multi-gene testing does not have to include only highly penetrant genes compared to 32.84% (n = 22) of the control group (p < 0.01). Similar results were seen with other specific survey items. The current study is important in that it shows web-based education to be a feasible and effective modality for training on hereditary breast cancer. This type of education may be incorporated into CME programs and can be used as a foundation for further studies as well.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a large strain on the US medical system, with shortage of medical personnel being a key issue. The role of medical school students during a pandemic is not well established. Understanding the perspectives of medical students with regard to their role is essential in determining how to facilitate the use of their skills in combating the pandemic. To evaluate medical student perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic, an anonymous online survey was distributed to medical students, primarily in the Northeastern United States. In the sample of 232 students, there were significant differences between students in different class years when assessing moral obligations to assist with the COVID-19 pandemic ( p = 0.002). A higher percentage of first and second year medical students (pre-clinical training, around 48%) felt that healthcare students are morally obligated to assist as compared to third and fourth year students (clinical training, 30.43% of third years and 23.19% of fourth years). In all class years, the majority said they would regret their decision if they had chosen not to study medicine (62.32% to 79.31%) and most students did not feel their motivation to become a physician had been decreased (84.78% to 87.50%). Though the study was limited because the majority of subjects were from New York, the results provide insight into medical students’ attitudes about the COVID-19 pandemic and can be used in the planning of how best to utilize medical students in this and in future situations. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01374-z.