共 2 条
Assessing educational priorities in genetics for general practitioners and specialists in five countries: factor structure of the Genetic-Educational Priorities (Gen-EP) scale
被引:0
|作者:
Calefato, Jean-Marc
[1
]
Nippert, Irma
[2
]
Harris, Hilary J.
[3
]
Kristoffersson, Ulf
[4
]
Schmidtke, Jorg
[5
]
Ten Kate, Leo P.
[6
]
Anionwu, Elizabeth
[7
]
Benjamin, Caroline
[3
]
Challen, Kirsty
[3
]
Plass, Anne-Marie
[6
]
Harris, Rodney
[3
]
Julian-Reynier, Claire
[1
,8
,9
]
机构:
[1] Univ Aix Marseille 1, INSERM, UMR912, Marseille, France
[2] Univ Klinikum Munster, Inst Humangenet, Frauengesund heitsforschung, Munster, Germany
[3] Univ Manchester, GenEd Coordinating Ctr, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
[4] Univ Hosp, Dept Clin Genet, Lund, Sweden
[5] Med Hochschule Hannover, Inst Humangenet, Hannover, Germany
[6] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr, EMGO Inst, Dept Clin Genet & Human Genet, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[7] Thames Valley Univ, Fac Hlth & Human Sci, London, England
[8] Inst J Paoli I Calmettes, F-13009 Marseille, France
[9] Univ Aix Marseille 1, Marseille, France
关键词:
genetics;
continuing education;
factor analysis;
reliability;
D O I:
10.1097/GIM.Ob013e3181614271
中图分类号:
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号:
071007 ;
090102 ;
摘要:
Purpose: A scale assessing primary care physicians' priorities for genetic education (The Gen-EP scale) was developed and tested in five European countries. The objective of this study was to determine its factor structure, to test scaling assumptions and to determine internal consistency. Methods: The sample consisted of 3686 practitioners (general practitioners, gyneco-obstetricians, pediatricians) sampled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and United Kingdom. We first determined the factor structure of the Gen-EP scale (30 items) on the whole sample. Scaling assumptions were then tested on each country using multitrait scaling analysis. Internal consistency was assessed across the five countries. Results: Six factors were identified accounting for 63.3% of the variance of the items. They represented the following priorities for genetic education: "Genetics of Common Diseases"; "Ethical, Legal, and Public Health Issues"; "Approaching Genetic Risk Assessment in Clinical Practice"; "Basic Genetics and Congenital Malformations"; "Techniques and Innovation in Genetics" and "Psychosocial and Counseling Issues." In each country, convergent and discriminant validity were satisfactory. Internal-consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) were all above the acceptable threshold (0.70). Conclusion: The Gen-EP scale could be a helpful instrument in different countries to organize and evaluate the impact of genetic educational programs for primary care providers.
引用
收藏
页码:99 / 106
页数:8
相关论文