Search

Despite the advancements in the production and accessibility of videos and animations, a gap exists between their potential for science teaching and their actual use in the classroom. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate an approach to boost chemistry and biology teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and their confidence regarding the use of videos and animations in class, which are required for their effective implementation. Twelve experienced high-school chemistry and biology teachers participated in a professional development workshop including biochemistry and technological--pedagogical lectures along with video-editing instruction and practice. Teachers were provided with digital videos including high-resolution scientifically based animations and were encouraged to edit them based on their pedagogical experience and the needs of their class. We investigated how the workshop affected teachers' TPACK-confidence and TPACK. TPACK-confidence was assessed by pre- and post-workshop questionnaires and open-ended feedback questionnaires. TPACK was assessed by analyses of the edited digital videos and pedagogical considerations submitted by the teachers. It was found that teachers' TPACK-confidence was significantly higher following the workshop. There was also a development in the teachers' TPACK. They were able to recommend to use digital videos in a variety of classroom situations based on the technological pedagogical knowledge (e.g., as an opening to a new topic) and their TPACK (e.g., to visualize complex biochemical processes). We also found a development in their video-editing skills and their knowledge of how to use this technology effectively in biochemistry lessons. Results indicate that training teachers in using technological tools while providing them with relevant Content Knowledge and TPACK, and relying on their pre-existing Pedagogical Content Knowledge may assist them develop their TPACK and TPACK-confidence. This may promote the effective use of videos and animations in biochemistry teaching.

Our previously published health economic modelling studies of DNA screening for HBOC, Lynch syndrome20 and familial hypercholesterolaemia21 provide a platform for the consideration of DNA screening in Australia. Our model on DNA screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia genes found similar results.21 Our future modelling will assess the combined benefits and costs of screening for familial cancer genes and familial hypercholesterolaemia genes concurrently in the same test. At $200 per test, savings in prevented cancer treatment outweighed DNA screening costs, projecting DNA screening to be cost-saving for the Australian public health system (for cancer genes alone). Keywords: Genetic counselling; Mass screening; Population health EN Genetic counselling Mass screening Population health 278 280 3 04/05/22 20220401 NES 220401 Australia will take a world-first step towards offering preventive DNA screening through the public health care system In adult-onset genomic conditions, such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch syndrome and familial hypercholesterolaemia, certain DNA variants confer high risk of developing future disease.1 DNA screening for these conditions could thereby identify medically actionable genetic risk factors, prompting timely risk management and informed decision making from early adulthood to facilitate early detection or prevention.2 Despite this opportunity, diagnostic rates for these conditions remain low,2-4 limited by restricted access to genetic testing and lack of awareness. [Extracted from the article]

Facilitating informed decision‐making regarding genetic testing is a core component of genetic counseling practice. Internationally, genetic testing is shifting toward gene panels and genomic testing, including whole exome and whole genome sequencing to improve diagnostic yield and cost‐effectiveness. This study explored genetics practitioners' current experience with panels and genomic tests and the associated evolution of genetic counseling practice. Genetics practitioners with genomic testing experience, were purposively invited to participate in a semi‐structured telephone interview and to snowball the invitation to colleagues. Interviews conducted with participants residing in Australia (n = 9) and the UK (n = 5) were transcribed and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Three themes emerged: (a) Role delineation: current roles, future roles, and the influence of increasing complexity; (b) The evolving spectrum of practice: blurred boundaries between research and clinical services; impact on facilitation of informed consent; and return of results strategies; and (c) Policy and governance needs: equality of access; achieving consistent variant interpretation, reporting, and responsibility for review; managing incidental findings; and professional regulation for Australian genetic counselors. These exploratory data highlight that genetic counseling practice and the essential role of facilitating informed consent are evolving but remain patient‐centered, with core skills underpinning practitioners' capacity to adapt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Widespread, quality genomics education for health professionals is required to create a competent genomic workforce. A lack of standards for reporting genomics education and evaluation limits the evidence base for replication and comparison. We therefore undertook a consensus process to develop a recommended minimum set of information to support consistent reporting of design, development, delivery, and evaluation of genomics education interventions., Methods: Draft standards were derived from literature (25 items from 21 publications). Thirty-six international experts were purposively recruited for three rounds of a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness, utility, and design., Results: The final standards include 18 items relating to development and delivery of genomics education interventions, 12 relating to evaluation, and 1 on stakeholder engagement., Conclusion: These Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics (RISE2 Genomics) are intended to be widely applicable across settings and health professions. Their use by those involved in reporting genomics education interventions and evaluation, as well as adoption by journals and policy makers as the expected standard, will support greater transparency, consistency, and comprehensiveness of reporting. Consequently, the genomics education evidence base will be more robust, enabling high-quality education and evaluation across diverse settings.

This paper uses consumer health informatics as a framework to explore whether and how direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing can be regarded as a form of information which assists consumers to manage their health. It presents findings from qualitative content analysis of web sites that offer testing services, and of transcripts from focus groups conducted as part a study of the Australian public's expectations of personal genomics. Content analysis showed that service offerings have some features of consumer health information but lack consistency. Focus group participants were mostly unfamiliar with the specifics of test reports and related information services. Some of their ideas about aids to knowledge were in line with the benefits described on provider web sites, but some expectations were inflated. People were ambivalent about whether these services would address consumers' health needs, interests and contexts and whether they would support consumers' health self-management decisions and outcomes. There is scope for consumer health informatics approaches to refine the usage and the utility of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Further research may focus on how uptake is affected by consumers' health literacy or by services' engagement with consumers about what they really want.