PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Implementation and evaluation of personal genetic testing as part of genomics analysis courses in German universities.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

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)

Publ. Version/Full Text

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Gold

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

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