ABSTRACT
The original version of this article contained an error in the usage of the term "false positive rate". The intention of the authors in those instances was simply to compare the absolute percentage of false positive results in the study vs the NLST, not to make any observations about false positive rate in the strict statistical sense (i.e. Type I error probability).
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Education of practicing health professionals is likely to be one factor that will speed appropriate integration of genomics into routine clinical practice. Yet many health professionals, including physicians, find it difficult to keep up with the rapid pace of clinical genomic advances and are often uncomfortable using genomic information in practice. METHODS: Having identified the genomics educational needs of physicians in a Silicon Valley-area community hospital, we developed, implemented, and evaluated an educational course entitled Medicine's Future: Genomics for Practicing Doctors. The course structure and approach were based on best practices in adult learning, including interactivity, case-based learning, skill-focused objectives, and sequential monthly modules. RESULTS: Approximately 20-30 physicians attended each module. They demonstrated significant gains in genomics knowledge and confidence in practice skills that were sustained throughout and following the course. Six months following the course, the majority of participants reported that they had changed their practice to incorporate skills learned during the course. CONCLUSION: We believe the adult-learning principles underlying the development and delivery of Medicine's Future were responsible for participants' outcomes. These principles form a model for the development and delivery of other genomics educational programs for health professionals.Genet Med 18 7, 737-745.
Subject(s)
Education, Medical , Genome, Human/genetics , Genomics/education , Health Personnel/education , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Educational , PhysiciansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in 2011 showed that low-dose CT (LDCT) screening in high-risk groups reduces lung cancer deaths. Major professional organizations, as well as the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, have endorsed LDCT screening in these select populations. However, major questions remain about whether widespread deployment of CT screening can achieve results similar to the NLST, especially in the community setting. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was initiated in November 2010. Participants at least 50 years old and with at least 20 pack-years of smoking history underwent LDCT screening in a community setting. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty four participants underwent LDCT screening with median follow-up of 2.7 years. Compared with the NLST, there was a higher rate of positive screening tests (35.7 vs. 27.3 %), higher false positive rate (100 vs. 96.4 %), and poor adherence (43 vs. 95 %). Invasive diagnostic follow-up was uncommon and uncomplicated. No interval lung cancer was detected. Late follow-up was mostly attributed to participant or primary care provider preference (67.5 %), participants lost to follow-up (17.5 %), and lack of insurance (10 %). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential challenges of generalizing the NLST mortality benefits in the broad deployment of CT screening. Our results support current recommendations that LDCT screening be performed in a highly structured and integrated setting.
