Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics)

Abstract

Purpose: Widespread, quality genomics education for health professionals is required to create a competent genomic workforce. A lack of standards for reporting genomics education and evaluation limits the evidence base for replication and comparison. We therefore undertook a consensus process with the aim of developing a recommended minimum set of information to support consistent reporting of the design, development, delivery and evaluation of genomics education interventions.Methods: Draft standards were derived from the literature (25 items from 21 publications).Thirty-six international experts were purposively recruited and completed three rounds of a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness, utility and design. Results:The final standards include 18 items relating to development and delivery of genomics education interventions, 12 relating to evaluation, and one on stakeholder engagement. Conclusion:These reporting item standards for education and evaluation of genomics (RISE2 Genomics) are intended to be widely applicable across settings and health professions. Their use by those involved in reporting genomics education interventions and evaluation, as well as their adoption by journals and policy makers as the expected standard, will support greater transparency, consistency and comprehensiveness of reporting.Consequently, the evidence base of genomics education will be more robust, enabling highquality genomics education and evaluation across a range of settings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Exome Analysis as a Diagnostic Test in Glomerular Diseases

“…The development of Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics will facilitate the development and delivery of genomics education and evaluation for nephrologists in future. 41 Results of our sensitivity analysis indicate that if patients were reviewed by a nephrologist together with a genetic counselor at the RGC (without requiring review by a clinical geneticist), the ICER would decrease to AU$2570, which is less than half the cost of the base case analysis. The cost of genomic pathways may also further decrease as price of sequencing falls.…”

Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing

“…Our systematic review conducted prior to the development of TRUSTING revealed that there were few publications evaluating interventions explicitly designed to help HCPs discussing hereditary breast cancer risk and testing and that most failed to operationalise the skills that were included, outcome measures or analysis [12]. More recently, an influential report on the guidelines for genomics education has been published which might assist future programme developers [25]. Communication interventions that have been shown to change skills that transfer into a clinic setting and which are enduring need three essential components: elements that expand or solidify participants' knowledge base, communication skills development and personal awareness [7,26].…”

Correspondence on “Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: Reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics)” by Nisselle et al

“…As such, we are heartened to see the rigorous approach employed by the RISE2 Genomics group. The leadership of G2NA fully endorses the framework put forth by Nisselle et al 1 and agrees that efforts are needed to advance harmonized work and build an evidence base for genomic education interventions and their evaluation. In addition, G2NA endorses the development of structured reporting guidelines (ie, Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network) as a priority to help further advance the state of the science for genomic education interventions and best practices in the field.…”

“…Indeed, educational interventions are inconsistently described and reported in the literature. To address this gap, Nisselle et al 1 performed a structured scoping review to identify an initial item bank to chronicle the terms used to describe educational interventions and/or metrics used for evaluating outcomes and categorized items according to the logic model (ie, planning, development, engagement, and evaluation). Subsequently, a rigorous, iterative Delphi process was employed by drawing on the expertise of 38 international (ie, 11 countries, 5 continents) experts from diverse backgrounds to identify essential final standards (n = 31 items within the 4 logic model categories).…”