TABLE 3.
Recommendation | Description |
---|---|
Audience background | Health Interpreters do not necessarily come from a scientific or medical background. Educators should not assume prior knowledge. More than 50% of questionnaire respondents had no prior genetics education. Up to 15% interpreted languages of limited diffusion and did not have specific Health Interpreter qualifications |
Pace of delivery | Multiple short sessions covering a single topic over weeks or months were suggested by respondents as a preferred pace of delivery to help with the information uptake |
Resources | Use a flipped classroom format by providing resources before training (i.e., presentation slides). These can assist participants during sessions delivered in real-time or used as a reference point later |
Clinical interaction examples | Information on what they can expect from clinical interactions that involve genetics was a desired inclusion for respondents. This content could be in the context of genetic health service appointments and other specialties. Although in this study, most respondents’ appointments, where genetics was encountered during 6-months follow-up, were with non-genetic medical specialties |
Disease-based examples | Reinforcing concepts by health condition examples was preferred |
Family context | Providing content in a way that engages Health Interpreters to think about genetics in the context of their own family. Participants engaged with content when explained in the context of their own family |
Activities | Respondents felt the presenter walkthrough of case studies and the associated use of quizzes was beneficial to their learning. Other activity styles suggested by respondents were role-play and group discussion of case studies or clinical scenarios |
Analogies | Respondents indicated that the use of analogies, such as comparing the human genome to a library, was effective in supporting their learning |