Development and Implementation of a Geriatric Oncology Interdisciplinary Case-Based Educational Intervention for Cancer Care Providers.

IF 3.2 Q2 ONCOLOGY JCO Global Oncology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1200/GO-24-00258
Haydee C Verduzco-Aguirre, Carolina Gomez-Moreno, Ana P Navarrete-Reyes, Gretell Henriquez-Santos, Javier Monroy Chargoy, Abigail Mateos-Soria, Juan José Sánchez-Hernández, Alicia Castelo-Loureiro, Liz Hamui-Sutton, Melchor Sánchez-Mendiola, Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis
{"title":"Development and Implementation of a Geriatric Oncology Interdisciplinary Case-Based Educational Intervention for Cancer Care Providers.","authors":"Haydee C Verduzco-Aguirre, Carolina Gomez-Moreno, Ana P Navarrete-Reyes, Gretell Henriquez-Santos, Javier Monroy Chargoy, Abigail Mateos-Soria, Juan José Sánchez-Hernández, Alicia Castelo-Loureiro, Liz Hamui-Sutton, Melchor Sánchez-Mendiola, Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis","doi":"10.1200/GO-24-00258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To develop and implement a continuing professional development (CPD) activity focused on geriatric assessment (GA) in oncology for oncologists and geriatricians. We evaluated the impact of this activity on knowledge, skills, and performance regarding GA in oncology, as well as its feasibility and acceptability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included teams composed of an oncologist and a geriatrician working in Mexico. Curriculum content was selected from geriatric oncology guidelines. We used Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcome (ECHO)'s model to create a 12-week online course. A one-group pretest post-test quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. At baseline, participants answered a multiple-choice knowledge assessment, a survey on self-perceived competence in GA, and an adaptation of the Association for Community Cancer Centers Geriatric Oncology Gap Assessment Tool, evaluating self-perceived performance in conducting geriatric interventions. These assessments and a satisfaction questionnaire were also completed postintervention. Baseline and postintervention scores were compared using paired <i>t</i>-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 40 participants (20 oncologists and 20 geriatricians). Median attendance was 10 sessions (range 2-12). Thirty-eight participants completed the satisfaction questionnaire, with a median score of 10/10 (range 8-10). The mean baseline and postintervention knowledge scores were 59.5 ± 12.8 and 74.4 ± 9.7, respectively (<i>P</i> < .001, effect size 1.14). The mean baseline and postintervention competence scores were 6.42 ± 2.5 and 9.02 ± 0.8, respectively (<i>P</i> < .001, effect size 1.03). The mean baseline and postintervention performance scores were 2.58 ± 0.65 and 3.29 ± 0.5, respectively (<i>P</i> < .001, effect size 1.64).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A CPD activity for oncologists and geriatricians on the basis of the Project ECHO model was feasible and acceptable, leading to increased knowledge, competence, and performance in geriatric oncology. This could represent a novel method for increasing the geriatric competence of the cancer care workforce in Latin America and globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":14806,"journal":{"name":"JCO Global Oncology","volume":"10 ","pages":"e2400258"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO Global Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/GO-24-00258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To develop and implement a continuing professional development (CPD) activity focused on geriatric assessment (GA) in oncology for oncologists and geriatricians. We evaluated the impact of this activity on knowledge, skills, and performance regarding GA in oncology, as well as its feasibility and acceptability.

Methods: We included teams composed of an oncologist and a geriatrician working in Mexico. Curriculum content was selected from geriatric oncology guidelines. We used Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcome (ECHO)'s model to create a 12-week online course. A one-group pretest post-test quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. At baseline, participants answered a multiple-choice knowledge assessment, a survey on self-perceived competence in GA, and an adaptation of the Association for Community Cancer Centers Geriatric Oncology Gap Assessment Tool, evaluating self-perceived performance in conducting geriatric interventions. These assessments and a satisfaction questionnaire were also completed postintervention. Baseline and postintervention scores were compared using paired t-tests.

Results: We included 40 participants (20 oncologists and 20 geriatricians). Median attendance was 10 sessions (range 2-12). Thirty-eight participants completed the satisfaction questionnaire, with a median score of 10/10 (range 8-10). The mean baseline and postintervention knowledge scores were 59.5 ± 12.8 and 74.4 ± 9.7, respectively (P < .001, effect size 1.14). The mean baseline and postintervention competence scores were 6.42 ± 2.5 and 9.02 ± 0.8, respectively (P < .001, effect size 1.03). The mean baseline and postintervention performance scores were 2.58 ± 0.65 and 3.29 ± 0.5, respectively (P < .001, effect size 1.64).

Conclusion: A CPD activity for oncologists and geriatricians on the basis of the Project ECHO model was feasible and acceptable, leading to increased knowledge, competence, and performance in geriatric oncology. This could represent a novel method for increasing the geriatric competence of the cancer care workforce in Latin America and globally.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为癌症护理人员开发和实施老年肿瘤学跨学科病例教育干预。
目的:为肿瘤学家和老年病学家开发并实施一项以肿瘤学中的老年病学评估(GA)为重点的继续职业发展(CPD)活动。我们评估了该活动对肿瘤学老年评估的知识、技能和绩效的影响,以及其可行性和可接受性:我们将在墨西哥工作的肿瘤学家和老年病学家组成的团队纳入其中。课程内容选自老年肿瘤学指南。我们采用社区医疗保健成果扩展项目(ECHO)的模式创建了一个为期 12 周的在线课程。我们采用了一组前测后测准实验设计来评估干预效果。在基线阶段,参与者要回答多项选择知识评估、自我认知老年医学能力调查以及社区癌症中心协会老年肿瘤学差距评估工具(Association for Community Cancer Centers Geriatric Oncology Gap Assessment Tool)的改编问卷,以评估在开展老年医学干预时的自我认知表现。这些评估和满意度问卷也在干预后完成。使用配对 t 检验比较基线得分和干预后得分:我们有 40 名参与者(20 名肿瘤学家和 20 名老年病学家)。参加次数中位数为 10 次(2-12 次不等)。38 名参与者填写了满意度问卷,中位数为 10/10(8-10 分不等)。基线得分和干预后知识得分的平均值分别为(59.5 ± 12.8)和(74.4 ± 9.7)(P < .001,效应大小为 1.14)。基线得分和干预后能力得分的平均值分别为(6.42 ± 2.5)和(9.02 ± 0.8)(P < .001,效应大小为 1.03)。基线得分和干预后表现得分的平均值分别为 2.58 ± 0.65 和 3.29 ± 0.5(P < .001,效应大小为 1.64):结论:以 "ECHO项目 "模式为基础,为肿瘤学家和老年病学家开展的继续医学教育活动是可行的,也是可以接受的,可以提高他们在老年肿瘤学方面的知识、能力和表现。这可能是提高拉丁美洲和全球癌症护理队伍老年病学能力的一种新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JCO Global Oncology
JCO Global Oncology Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
310
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Beliefs on Causes of Cancer in the General Population, and the Association With Risk Perception and Lifestyle in a Multiethnic Setting. Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar Cetuximab Versus Innovator Cetuximab in Indian Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial. Evaluation of the Stronger Together Peer Mentoring Model Among Patients With Breast and Gynecologic Cancer in Viet Nam. Germline Genetic Susceptibility Testing Among Emirati Nationals at Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome. Health-Related Quality of Life and Financial Burden in Ethiopian Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Receiving Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: A Cross-Sectional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1