Aligning values with standards: a comparison of professional values in Continuing Education standards

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Ana Rabasco, Gregory Neimeyer, Zeljka Macura, Dean McKay, Jason Washburn
{"title":"Aligning values with standards: a comparison of professional values in Continuing Education standards","authors":"Ana Rabasco, Gregory Neimeyer, Zeljka Macura, Dean McKay, Jason Washburn","doi":"10.1080/10508422.2023.2266074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTContinuing Education (CE) aims to help health professionals fulfill their ethical responsibility of maintaining professional competence. This research compares the CE guidelines and standards of 11 health professional organizations in relation to five domains of evolving professional values: ethics, cultural diversity, social justice, interprofessionalism, and self-care. Results showed that ethics received the greatest attention across the CE standards, followed by interprofessionalism and cultural diversity. This study offers a starting point for CE accreditors to examine the extent to which their CE standards align with their profession’s stipulated values, and to situate themselves within the broader context of health profession accreditors.KEYWORDS: EthicsContinuing Educationinterprofessionalismcultural diversityhealth professions AcknowledgmentsBea Mendoza and Woodson Wisz served as research assistants on this project with support provided by the American Psychological Association.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementData are available upon reasonable request by emailing the corresponding author.Additional informationFundingThe first author’s (AR) effort was in part supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (5T32MH126426).","PeriodicalId":47265,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2023.2266074","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTContinuing Education (CE) aims to help health professionals fulfill their ethical responsibility of maintaining professional competence. This research compares the CE guidelines and standards of 11 health professional organizations in relation to five domains of evolving professional values: ethics, cultural diversity, social justice, interprofessionalism, and self-care. Results showed that ethics received the greatest attention across the CE standards, followed by interprofessionalism and cultural diversity. This study offers a starting point for CE accreditors to examine the extent to which their CE standards align with their profession’s stipulated values, and to situate themselves within the broader context of health profession accreditors.KEYWORDS: EthicsContinuing Educationinterprofessionalismcultural diversityhealth professions AcknowledgmentsBea Mendoza and Woodson Wisz served as research assistants on this project with support provided by the American Psychological Association.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementData are available upon reasonable request by emailing the corresponding author.Additional informationFundingThe first author’s (AR) effort was in part supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (5T32MH126426).
价值观与标准的统一:持续教育标准中专业价值观的比较
摘要继续教育旨在帮助卫生专业人员履行保持专业能力的道德责任。本研究比较了11个卫生专业组织在职业价值观演变的5个领域(伦理、文化多样性、社会公正、专业间性和自我保健)方面的CE指南和标准。结果显示,道德在所有CE标准中受到的关注最多,其次是跨专业和文化多样性。本研究为CE认证机构提供了一个起点,以检查其CE标准在多大程度上符合其专业规定的价值观,并将自己置于更广泛的卫生专业认证机构的背景下。关键词:伦理学、继续教育、跨专业、文化多样性、卫生专业致谢bea Mendoza和Woodson Wisz在美国心理学会的支持下担任该项目的研究助理。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。数据可用性声明如果通过电子邮件向通讯作者提出合理要求,可以获得数据。第一作者(AR)的努力得到了国家心理健康研究所(5T32MH126426)的部分支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics & Behavior
Ethics & Behavior Multiple-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信