PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Implementation and evaluation of personal genetic testing as part of genomics analysis courses in German universities.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Slosarek, T.* ; Ibing, S.* ; Schormair, B. ; Heyne, H.O.* ; Bottinger, E.P.* ; Andlauer, T.F.M.* ; Schurmann, C.*

Implementation and evaluation of personal genetic testing as part of genomics analysis courses in German universities.

BMC Med. Genomics 16:73 (2023)

Verlagsversion

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

PURPOSE: Due to the increasing application of genome analysis and interpretation in medical disciplines, professionals require adequate education. Here, we present the implementation of personal genotyping as an educational tool in two genomics courses targeting Digital Health students at the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI) and medical students at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). METHODS: We compared and evaluated the courses and the students' perceptions on the course setup using questionnaires. RESULTS: During the course, students changed their attitudes towards genotyping (HPI: 79% [15 of 19], TUM: 47% [25 of 53]). Predominantly, students became more critical of personal genotyping (HPI: 73% [11 of 15], TUM: 72% [18 of 25]) and most students stated that genetic analyses should not be allowed without genetic counseling (HPI: 79% [15 of 19], TUM: 70% [37 of 53]). Students found the personal genotyping component useful (HPI: 89% [17 of 19], TUM: 92% [49 of 53]) and recommended its inclusion in future courses (HPI: 95% [18 of 19], TUM: 98% [52 of 53]). CONCLUSION: Students perceived the personal genotyping component as valuable in the described genomics courses. The implementation described here can serve as an example for future courses in Europe.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

2.700

0.000