Evaluation of a Genetics Education Program for Health Interpreters: A Pilot Study
- PMID: 35186003
- PMCID: PMC8850313
- DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2021.771892
Evaluation of a Genetics Education Program for Health Interpreters: A Pilot Study
Abstract
Health Interpreters enable effective communication between health practitioners and patients with limited knowledge of the predominant language. This study developed and evaluated a training session introducing Health Interpreters to genetics. The online training was delivered multiple times as a single 2-h session comprising lectures and activities. Participants completed questionnaires (pre-, post-, and 6-months follow-up) to assess the impact of training on knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, and self-reported practice behaviour. Questionnaires were analysed using descriptive statistics, Fisher's Exact, or independent t-test. In total, 118 interpreters participated in the training sessions. Respondent knowledge improved, with gains maintained at 6-months (p < 0.01). There were no changes in self-efficacy, and attitudes. Training did not change self-reported practice behaviour, but there was notable pre-existing variability in participants' methods of managing unknown genetic words. Most respondents agreed that training was useful (93%) and relevant (79%) to their work. More respondents reported learning more from the case study activity (86%) than the group activity (58%). Health Interpreters found the training acceptable and demonstrated sustained improvement in knowledge of genetic concepts. Increased delivery of this training and associated research is needed to assess findings in a larger cohort and to measure the impact on patients.
Keywords: culturally and linguistically diverse; education; evaluation; genetics; genomics; health interpreter; implementation; medical interpreter.
Copyright © 2022 Vidgen, Fowles, Istiko, Evans, Cutler, Sullivan, Bean, Healy, Hondow, McInerney-Leo, Pratt, Robins, Best, Finlay, Ramarao-Milne and Waddell.
Conflict of interest statement
NW is a co-founder, minor equity holder, and Board member of genomiQa. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Figures




References
-
- Atkins L., Francis J., Islam R., O’Connor D., Patey A., Ivers N., et al. (2017). A Guide to Using the Theoretical Domains Framework of Behaviour Change to Investigate Implementation Problems. Implementation Sci.. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 12 (1), 77. 10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). 2016 Census QuickStats: Australia. Available at: https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/cens... (Accessed February 28, 2020).
-
- Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare (2008). Consumer Guide to Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. Sydney, NSW: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. Available at: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/partnering-consumers/austra....
-
- Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (2012). AUSIT Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. Brisbane, Queensland: Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators. Available at: https://ausit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Code_Of_Ethics_Full.pdf.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources