Read Catherine Y, Ward Linda D
Alpha Chi, Associate Professor, Boston College, William F. Connell School of Nursing, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.
Delta Chi, Assistant Professor, Washington State University, College of Nursing, Spokane, WA, USA.
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2016 Jan;48(1):5-13. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12175. Epub 2015 Nov 2.
To use the newly developed Genomic Nursing Concept Inventory (GNCI) to evaluate faculty understanding of foundational genomic concepts, explore relative areas of strength and weakness, and compare the results with those of a student sample.
An anonymous online survey instrument consisting of demographic or background items and the 31 multiple-choice questions that make up the GNCI was completed by 495 nursing faculty from across the United States in the fall of 2014.
Total GNCI score and scores on four subcategories (genome basics, mutations, inheritance, genomic health) were calculated. Relationships between demographic or background variables and total GNCI score were explored.
The mean score on the GNCI was 14.93 (SD = 5.31), or 48% correct; topical category scores were highest on the inheritance and genomic health items (59% and 58% correct, respectively), moderate on the mutations items (54% correct), and lowest on the genome basics items (33% correct). These results are strikingly similar to those of a recent study of nursing students. Factors associated with a higher total score on the GNCI included higher self-rated proficiency with genetic/genomic content, having a doctoral degree, having taken a genetics course for academic credit or continuing education, and having taught either a stand-alone genetic/genomic course or lecture content as part of nursing or related course. Self-rated proficiency with genetic/genomic content was fair or poor (70%), with only 7% rating their proficiency as very good or excellent.
Faculty knowledge of foundational genomic concepts is similar to that of the students they teach and weakest in the areas related to basic science information.
Genomics is increasingly relevant in all areas of clinical nursing practice, and the faculty charged with educating the next generation of nurses must understand foundational concepts. Faculty need to be proactive in seeking out relevant educational programs that include basic genetic/genomic concepts.
使用新开发的基因组护理概念量表（GNCI）来评估教师对基础基因组概念的理解，探索相对优势和劣势领域，并将结果与学生样本的结果进行比较。
2014年秋季，来自美国各地的495名护理教师完成了一份匿名在线调查问卷，该问卷包括人口统计学或背景项目以及构成GNCI的31道多项选择题。
计算GNCI总分以及四个子类别（基因组基础、突变、遗传、基因组健康）的得分。探讨人口统计学或背景变量与GNCI总分之间的关系。
GNCI的平均得分为14.93（标准差=5.31），即正确率为48%；主题类别得分在遗传和基因组健康项目上最高（分别为59%和58%正确），在突变项目上中等（54%正确），在基因组基础项目上最低（33%正确）。这些结果与最近一项针对护理专业学生的研究结果惊人地相似。与GNCI总分较高相关的因素包括对遗传/基因组内容的自我评估熟练度较高、拥有博士学位、修过获得学术学分或继续教育的遗传学课程，以及教授过独立的遗传/基因组课程或作为护理或相关课程一部分的讲座内容。对遗传/基因组内容的自我评估熟练度为中等或较差（70%），只有7%的人将自己的熟练度评为非常好或优秀。
教师对基础基因组概念的了解与他们所教学生的了解相似，在与基础科学信息相关的领域最为薄弱。
基因组学在临床护理实践的所有领域中越来越重要，负责教育下一代护士的教师必须理解基础概念。教师需要积极寻求包括基础遗传/基因组概念的相关教育项目。
