Development and evaluation of a novel educational program for providers on the use of polygenic risk scores

Abstract

BackgroundPolygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast and ovarian cancer risk are increasingly available to the public through clinical research and commercial genetic testing companies. Healthcare providers frequently report limited knowledge and confidence using PRS, representing a significant barrier to evaluation and uptake of this technology. We aimed to develop and evaluate the impact of a novel online educational program on genetic healthcare providers (GHP) attitudes, confidence and knowledge using PRS for breast and ovarian cancer risk. MethodsThe educational program was informed by adult learning theory and the Kolb experiential learning model. The program was comprised of two phases: i) an online module covering the theoretical aspects of PRS and ii) a facilitated virtual workshop with pre-recorded role plays and case discussions. A pre-and post-education survey was administered to evaluate the impact of the educational program on GHP attitudes, confidence, knowledge, and preparedness for using PRS. Eligible participants were GHP working in one of 12 familial cancer in Australia registered to recruit patients for a breast and ovarian cancer PRS clinical trial and completed the education program. Results124 GHP completed the PRS education, of whom 80 (64%) and 67 (41%) completed the pre- and post-evaluation survey, respectively. Pre-education, GHP reported limited experience, confidence and preparedness using PRS. GHP frequently recognized potential benefits to PRS, most commonly that this information could improve access to tailored screening (rated as beneficial/very beneficial by 92% of GHP pre-education). Completion of the education program was associated with significantly improved attitudes (p=<0.001), confidence (p=<0.001), knowledge of (p=<0.001) and preparedness (p=<0.001) using PRS. Most GHP indicated the education program entirely met their learning needs (73%) and felt the content was entirely relevant to their clinical practice (88%). GHP identified further PRS implementation issues including limited funding models, diversity issues, need for clinical guidelines and ongoing updates given the rapid pace of PRS research. ConclusionsDelivery of a novel education program can improve GHP attitudes, confidence, knowledge, and preparedness using PRS. Careful consideration of healthcare providers learning needs is required to support PRS research and clinical translation.