Cargando…
Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial
Personal genomic educational testing (PGET) has been suggested as a strategy to improve student learning for pharmacogenomics (PGx), but no randomized studies have evaluated PGET’s educational benefit. We investigated the effect of PGET on student knowledge, comfort, and attitudes related to PGx in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604226/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34431601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.13121 |
_version_ | 1784601913783746560 |
---|---|
author | Grace, Chloe Larriva, Marti M. Steiner, Heidi E. Marupuru, Srujitha Campbell, Patrick J. Patterson, Hayley Cropp, Cheryl D. Quinn, Dorothy Klimecki, Walter Nix, David E. Warholak, Terri Karnes, Jason H. |
author_facet | Grace, Chloe Larriva, Marti M. Steiner, Heidi E. Marupuru, Srujitha Campbell, Patrick J. Patterson, Hayley Cropp, Cheryl D. Quinn, Dorothy Klimecki, Walter Nix, David E. Warholak, Terri Karnes, Jason H. |
author_sort | Grace, Chloe |
collection | PubMed |
description | Personal genomic educational testing (PGET) has been suggested as a strategy to improve student learning for pharmacogenomics (PGx), but no randomized studies have evaluated PGET’s educational benefit. We investigated the effect of PGET on student knowledge, comfort, and attitudes related to PGx in a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial. Consenting participants were randomized to receive PGET or no PGET (NPGET) during 4 subsequent years of a PGx course. All participants completed a pre‐survey and post‐survey designed to assess (1) PGx knowledge, (2) comfort with PGx patient education and clinical skills, and (3) attitudes toward PGx. Instructors were blinded to PGET assignment. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare pre‐survey and post‐survey PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed between PGET (n = 117) and NPGET (n = 116) participants. Among all participants, significant improvement was observed in PGx knowledge (mean 57% vs. 39% correct responses; p < 0.001) with similar results for student comfort and attitudes. Change in pre/post‐PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes were not significantly different between PGET and NPGET groups (mean 19.5% vs. 16.7% knowledge improvement, respectively; p = 0.41). Similar results were observed for PGET participants carrying a highly actionable PGx variant versus PGET participants without an actionable variant. Significant improvement in Likert scale responses were observed in PGET versus NPGET for questions that assessed student engagement (p = 0.020) and reinforcement of course concepts (p = 0.006). Although some evidence of improved engagement and participation was observed, the results of this study suggest that PGET does not directly improve student PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8604226 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86042262021-11-24 Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial Grace, Chloe Larriva, Marti M. Steiner, Heidi E. Marupuru, Srujitha Campbell, Patrick J. Patterson, Hayley Cropp, Cheryl D. Quinn, Dorothy Klimecki, Walter Nix, David E. Warholak, Terri Karnes, Jason H. Clin Transl Sci Research Personal genomic educational testing (PGET) has been suggested as a strategy to improve student learning for pharmacogenomics (PGx), but no randomized studies have evaluated PGET’s educational benefit. We investigated the effect of PGET on student knowledge, comfort, and attitudes related to PGx in a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial. Consenting participants were randomized to receive PGET or no PGET (NPGET) during 4 subsequent years of a PGx course. All participants completed a pre‐survey and post‐survey designed to assess (1) PGx knowledge, (2) comfort with PGx patient education and clinical skills, and (3) attitudes toward PGx. Instructors were blinded to PGET assignment. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare pre‐survey and post‐survey PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed between PGET (n = 117) and NPGET (n = 116) participants. Among all participants, significant improvement was observed in PGx knowledge (mean 57% vs. 39% correct responses; p < 0.001) with similar results for student comfort and attitudes. Change in pre/post‐PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes were not significantly different between PGET and NPGET groups (mean 19.5% vs. 16.7% knowledge improvement, respectively; p = 0.41). Similar results were observed for PGET participants carrying a highly actionable PGx variant versus PGET participants without an actionable variant. Significant improvement in Likert scale responses were observed in PGET versus NPGET for questions that assessed student engagement (p = 0.020) and reinforcement of course concepts (p = 0.006). Although some evidence of improved engagement and participation was observed, the results of this study suggest that PGET does not directly improve student PGx knowledge, comfort, and attitudes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-08-25 2021-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8604226/ /pubmed/34431601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.13121 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Research Grace, Chloe Larriva, Marti M. Steiner, Heidi E. Marupuru, Srujitha Campbell, Patrick J. Patterson, Hayley Cropp, Cheryl D. Quinn, Dorothy Klimecki, Walter Nix, David E. Warholak, Terri Karnes, Jason H. Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial |
title | Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: A nonblinded, randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | efficacy of personal pharmacogenomic testing as an educational tool in the pharmacy curriculum: a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604226/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34431601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.13121 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gracechloe efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT larrivamartim efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT steinerheidie efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT marupurusrujitha efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT campbellpatrickj efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT pattersonhayley efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT croppcheryld efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT quinndorothy efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT klimeckiwalter efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT nixdavide efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT warholakterri efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT karnesjasonh efficacyofpersonalpharmacogenomictestingasaneducationaltoolinthepharmacycurriculumanonblindedrandomizedcontrolledtrial |