Cargando…

Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians

PURPOSE: Gene expression profiling (GEP) test scores calculate risks of recurrence and likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. As health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are poor, healthcare professionals (HCPs) require...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fallowfield, L., Solis-Trapala, I., Starkings, R., Catt, S., May, S., Jenkins, V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6745030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31201584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05316-7
_version_ 1783451469770391552
author Fallowfield, L.
Solis-Trapala, I.
Starkings, R.
Catt, S.
May, S.
Jenkins, V.
author_facet Fallowfield, L.
Solis-Trapala, I.
Starkings, R.
Catt, S.
May, S.
Jenkins, V.
author_sort Fallowfield, L.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Gene expression profiling (GEP) test scores calculate risks of recurrence and likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. As health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are poor, healthcare professionals (HCPs) require a wide repertoire of communication skills to explain clearly risk of recurrence scores (RSs) and uncertainty. We developed and evaluated an educational program for HCPs discussing GEP test results and adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Eight-hour workshops contained elements aimed at improving knowledge, communication skills and self-awareness; these included the science underpinning GEP tests, an interactive risk psychology lecture, exercises and facilitated group discussions regarding seven filmed scenarios involving discussions about high, intermediate and low RSs. Attendees were recorded explaining RSs with patient simulators pre and post workshop. Researchers, blinded to time point, analysed recordings using a study-specific scoring system. Primary objective outcomes were improvements post workshop in HCPs’ competence and confidence when communicating 17 pre-specified key information areas. We estimated odds ratios (OR) using conditional logistic regression to compare pre- and post-workshop scores. RESULTS: 65 HCPs attended. Objective analyses revealed significant positive shifts post workshop which included explaining GEP tests (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.38–6.42; P = .001), recurrence RSs (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.72–9.25; P < .001), benefits of chemotherapy (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.82–8.75; P < .001; and harms OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.37–3.92; P < .001) using jargon free language (OR 5.29; 95% CI 2.27–12.35; P < .001). Patient simulator assessments also showed significant improvements as did HCPs’ self-assessments and ratings of their self-confidence when discussing different GEP tests with diverse patient types (P < .001). CONCLUSION: These short, intensive, interactive TARGET workshops significantly improved HCPs’ communication about GEP results in ways likely to promote more informed decision-making by patients about chemotherapy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05316-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6745030
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67450302019-09-27 Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians Fallowfield, L. Solis-Trapala, I. Starkings, R. Catt, S. May, S. Jenkins, V. Breast Cancer Res Treat Clinical Trial PURPOSE: Gene expression profiling (GEP) test scores calculate risks of recurrence and likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. As health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are poor, healthcare professionals (HCPs) require a wide repertoire of communication skills to explain clearly risk of recurrence scores (RSs) and uncertainty. We developed and evaluated an educational program for HCPs discussing GEP test results and adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Eight-hour workshops contained elements aimed at improving knowledge, communication skills and self-awareness; these included the science underpinning GEP tests, an interactive risk psychology lecture, exercises and facilitated group discussions regarding seven filmed scenarios involving discussions about high, intermediate and low RSs. Attendees were recorded explaining RSs with patient simulators pre and post workshop. Researchers, blinded to time point, analysed recordings using a study-specific scoring system. Primary objective outcomes were improvements post workshop in HCPs’ competence and confidence when communicating 17 pre-specified key information areas. We estimated odds ratios (OR) using conditional logistic regression to compare pre- and post-workshop scores. RESULTS: 65 HCPs attended. Objective analyses revealed significant positive shifts post workshop which included explaining GEP tests (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.38–6.42; P = .001), recurrence RSs (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.72–9.25; P < .001), benefits of chemotherapy (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.82–8.75; P < .001; and harms OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.37–3.92; P < .001) using jargon free language (OR 5.29; 95% CI 2.27–12.35; P < .001). Patient simulator assessments also showed significant improvements as did HCPs’ self-assessments and ratings of their self-confidence when discussing different GEP tests with diverse patient types (P < .001). CONCLUSION: These short, intensive, interactive TARGET workshops significantly improved HCPs’ communication about GEP results in ways likely to promote more informed decision-making by patients about chemotherapy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05316-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users. Springer US 2019-06-14 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6745030/ /pubmed/31201584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05316-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Clinical Trial
Fallowfield, L.
Solis-Trapala, I.
Starkings, R.
Catt, S.
May, S.
Jenkins, V.
Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians
title Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians
title_full Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians
title_fullStr Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians
title_full_unstemmed Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians
title_short Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians
title_sort talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (target): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians
topic Clinical Trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6745030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31201584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05316-7
work_keys_str_mv AT fallowfieldl talkingaboutriskinthecontextofgenomicteststargetdevelopmentandevaluationofaneducationalprogramforclinicians
AT solistrapalai talkingaboutriskinthecontextofgenomicteststargetdevelopmentandevaluationofaneducationalprogramforclinicians
AT starkingsr talkingaboutriskinthecontextofgenomicteststargetdevelopmentandevaluationofaneducationalprogramforclinicians
AT catts talkingaboutriskinthecontextofgenomicteststargetdevelopmentandevaluationofaneducationalprogramforclinicians
AT mays talkingaboutriskinthecontextofgenomicteststargetdevelopmentandevaluationofaneducationalprogramforclinicians
AT jenkinsv talkingaboutriskinthecontextofgenomicteststargetdevelopmentandevaluationofaneducationalprogramforclinicians