Implementation of Educational Opportunities for Social Determinants of Health in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review

Kelsey J Picha, Bailey Jones, CJ Garcia, Zachary K. Winkelmann
{"title":"Implementation of Educational Opportunities for Social Determinants of Health in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review","authors":"Kelsey J Picha, Bailey Jones, CJ Garcia, Zachary K. Winkelmann","doi":"10.4085/1947-380x-23-052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Health professions programs have recently increased their efforts to educate health care professionals about the social determinants of health (SDH); however, there seems to be a disconnect between graduate medical education and its applicability to other peer health professions. The current scoping review aims to map the literature that explores the implementation of educational opportunities focused on SDH in health professions education programs.\n \n \n \n PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, Education Source, and the Health Policy Reference Center were searched to identify relevant articles.\n \n \n \n To be included in our review, articles had to have been published in the last 5 years and describe how material related to SDH was implemented into a graduate health professions education program. Outcomes were analyzed by thematic categories by type of curricular delivery (didactic, clinical education, service-learning experience, or reflection), timing of the implementation in the program, methods of implementation, and assessment after implementation.\n \n \n \n Our search identified 2006 articles that were reviewed by study authors; 36 were included in our full-text review. Information extracted included the study design, type of graduate education, aims of the studies, description of technique, timing of implementation, type of curricular delivery, and outcomes.\n \n \n \n The majority (23, 63.9%) of studies used an observational design and used 2 or more (27, 75.0%) types of curricular delivery presented to medical students. Didactic (19, 52.8%) and small-group discussion (14, 38.9%) methods were used most often. Assessments were mostly student reflections or self-report items. Overall, students reported increased knowledge and satisfaction with activities.\n \n \n \n Results of our scoping review indicated that various education opportunities related to SDH exist in graduate health professions education but are likely insufficient. More studies are necessary to investigate the purposeful implementation of SDH and the best methods to assess student knowledge of SDH. Future research should also investigate how to objectively assess student learning of SDH.\n","PeriodicalId":448792,"journal":{"name":"Athletic training education journal","volume":"265 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Athletic training education journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4085/1947-380x-23-052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health professions programs have recently increased their efforts to educate health care professionals about the social determinants of health (SDH); however, there seems to be a disconnect between graduate medical education and its applicability to other peer health professions. The current scoping review aims to map the literature that explores the implementation of educational opportunities focused on SDH in health professions education programs. PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, Education Source, and the Health Policy Reference Center were searched to identify relevant articles. To be included in our review, articles had to have been published in the last 5 years and describe how material related to SDH was implemented into a graduate health professions education program. Outcomes were analyzed by thematic categories by type of curricular delivery (didactic, clinical education, service-learning experience, or reflection), timing of the implementation in the program, methods of implementation, and assessment after implementation. Our search identified 2006 articles that were reviewed by study authors; 36 were included in our full-text review. Information extracted included the study design, type of graduate education, aims of the studies, description of technique, timing of implementation, type of curricular delivery, and outcomes. The majority (23, 63.9%) of studies used an observational design and used 2 or more (27, 75.0%) types of curricular delivery presented to medical students. Didactic (19, 52.8%) and small-group discussion (14, 38.9%) methods were used most often. Assessments were mostly student reflections or self-report items. Overall, students reported increased knowledge and satisfaction with activities. Results of our scoping review indicated that various education opportunities related to SDH exist in graduate health professions education but are likely insufficient. More studies are necessary to investigate the purposeful implementation of SDH and the best methods to assess student knowledge of SDH. Future research should also investigate how to objectively assess student learning of SDH.
在卫生专业教育中实施健康的社会决定因素教育机会:范围审查
最近,卫生专业课程加大了对医护专业人员进行健康的社会决定因素(SDH)教育的力度;然而,医学研究生教育与其对其他同行卫生专业的适用性之间似乎存在脱节。本次范围界定综述旨在对探讨在卫生专业教育项目中实施以 SDH 为重点的教育机会的文献进行梳理。 我们检索了 PubMed、CINAHL、ERIC、Education Source 和 Health Policy Reference Center,以确定相关文章。 要纳入我们的综述,文章必须是在过去 5 年内发表的,并描述了如何在研究生卫生专业教育项目中实施与 SDH 相关的材料。我们按课程实施类型(授课、临床教育、服务学习体验或反思)、课程实施时间、实施方法和实施后评估等主题类别对结果进行了分析。 我们通过搜索发现了 2006 篇文章,并由研究作者进行了审阅;其中 36 篇文章被纳入全文审阅。提取的信息包括研究设计、研究生教育类型、研究目的、技术描述、实施时间、课程实施类型和结果。 大多数研究(23 项,占 63.9%)采用了观察性设计,并向医学生介绍了两种或两种以上(27 项,占 75.0%)的课程授课类型。最常用的是授课法(19 项,52.8%)和小组讨论法(14 项,38.9%)。评估主要是学生的反思或自我报告项目。总体而言,学生对活动的了解和满意度都有所提高。 我们的范围审查结果表明,在卫生专业研究生教育中存在各种与 SDH 相关的教育机会,但可能还不够。有必要开展更多的研究来调查 SDH 的有目的实施情况以及评估学生对 SDH 的了解程度的最佳方法。未来的研究还应探讨如何客观地评估学生对 SDH 的学习情况。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信