Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jun 11.
Published in final edited form as: Genet Med. 2021 Feb 12;23(6):1151–1157. doi: 10.1038/s41436-021-01100-5

Fig. 4. Comparison of time and quality of training in molecular genetics and genomic medicine.

Fig. 4

Left: PGY1 residents were asked, “In terms of contact hours, how did the time spent in molecular genetics and genomic medicine compare to the following other topics” (topic choices were pharmacology, pathology, and cardiology). Answer choices included the following: “much less than molecular genetics and genomic medicine,” “less than molecular genetics and genomic medicine,” “about the same as molecular genetics and genomic medicine,” “more than molecular genetics and genomic medicine,” “much more than molecular genetics and genomic medicine.” Zero respondents reported that time spent in pharmacology, pathology, and cardiology was less than in molecular genetics and genomic medicine. Right: participants were asked, “In terms of quality of instruction, how do you feel molecular genetics and genomic medicine compare with the following other topics” (same three topics for comparison). Answer choices included the following: “much worse than molecular genetics and genomic medicine,” “worse than molecular genetics and genomic medicine,” “about the same as molecular genetics and genomic medicine,” “better than molecular genetics and genomic medicine,” “much better than molecular genetics and genomic medicine” (y-axis, percentage of residents responding with indicated answer choice). Zero respondents reported that quality of training in pharmacology, pathology, and cardiology was less than in molecular genetics and genomic medicine.