English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose  Gene expression profiling (GEP) test scores calculate risks of recurrence and likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. As health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are poor, healthcare professionals (HCPs) require a wide repertoire of communication skills to explain clearly risk of recurrence scores (RSs) and uncertainty. We developed and evaluated an educational program for HCPs discussing GEP test results and adjuvant treatment.    Methods  Eight-hour workshops contained elements aimed at improving knowledge, communication skills and self-awareness; these included the science underpinning GEP tests, an interactive risk psychology lecture, exercises and facilitated group discussions regarding seven filmed scenarios involving discussions about high, intermediate and low RSs. Attendees were recorded explaining RSs with patient simulators pre and post workshop. Researchers, blinded to time point, analysed recordings using a study-specific scoring system. Primary objective outcomes were improvements post workshop in HCPs’ competence and confidence when communicating 17 pre-specified key information areas. We estimated odds ratios (OR) using conditional logistic regression to compare pre- and post-workshop scores.    Results  65 HCPs attended. Objective analyses revealed significant positive shifts post workshop which included explaining GEP tests (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.38–6.42;  P  = .001), recurrence RSs (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.72–9.25;  P  < .001), benefits of chemotherapy (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.82–8.75;  P  < .001; and harms OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.37–3.92;  P  < .001) using jargon free language (OR 5.29; 95% CI 2.27–12.35;  P  < .001). Patient simulator assessments also showed significant improvements as did HCPs’ self-assessments and ratings of their self-confidence when discussing different GEP tests with diverse patient types ( P  < .001).    Conclusion  These short, intensive, interactive TARGET workshops significantly improved HCPs’ communication about GEP results in ways likely to promote more informed decision-making by patients about chemotherapy.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05316-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians