Are physicians prepared to care for older adults? A scoping review of validated geriatrics knowledge assessment tools in US-based medical education curricula.

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Malvika Varma, Claire Quinlan, Paul A Bain, Andrea Wershof Schwartz
{"title":"Are physicians prepared to care for older adults? A scoping review of validated geriatrics knowledge assessment tools in US-based medical education curricula.","authors":"Malvika Varma, Claire Quinlan, Paul A Bain, Andrea Wershof Schwartz","doi":"10.1080/02701960.2025.2512748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To determine the preparedness of medical trainees to care for older adults, appropriate assessment tools are needed. There are few validated published tools that measure Geriatrics knowledge with a high degree of reliability, and it is unclear how often they are applied to measure learning outcomes among medical trainees.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of validated Geriatrics knowledge assessment tools for physicians that are available to assess learners' knowledge of Geriatrics, with a particular interest in tool alignment with the Age-Friendly Health Systems Initiative and the Geriatrics 5 Ms framework (Mobility, Mind, Medications, Multicomplexity, Matters Most), which frame the medical student Geriatrics competencies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and ERIC) prior to 2023 to identify Geriatrics knowledge assessment tools used to assess the knowledge of physicians in practice and training.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-six studies that used a validated Geriatrics knowledge instrument to assess changes in knowledge and/or skills were selected for final analysis. Fifty percent of studies reported the development and validation of a new instrument. No instruments were based on updated medical student competencies aligned with the Geriatrics 5 Ms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the availability of validated instruments, they do not appear to be commonly used to reflect learning outcomes in the published Geriatrics medical education literature. Additionally, there is significant variation in competencies guiding validated instruments, and currently, no published tools that directly align with the Age-Friendly competencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":46431,"journal":{"name":"GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2025.2512748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To determine the preparedness of medical trainees to care for older adults, appropriate assessment tools are needed. There are few validated published tools that measure Geriatrics knowledge with a high degree of reliability, and it is unclear how often they are applied to measure learning outcomes among medical trainees.

Objective: We conducted a scoping review of validated Geriatrics knowledge assessment tools for physicians that are available to assess learners' knowledge of Geriatrics, with a particular interest in tool alignment with the Age-Friendly Health Systems Initiative and the Geriatrics 5 Ms framework (Mobility, Mind, Medications, Multicomplexity, Matters Most), which frame the medical student Geriatrics competencies.

Methods: We systematically searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and ERIC) prior to 2023 to identify Geriatrics knowledge assessment tools used to assess the knowledge of physicians in practice and training.

Results: Thirty-six studies that used a validated Geriatrics knowledge instrument to assess changes in knowledge and/or skills were selected for final analysis. Fifty percent of studies reported the development and validation of a new instrument. No instruments were based on updated medical student competencies aligned with the Geriatrics 5 Ms.

Conclusion: Despite the availability of validated instruments, they do not appear to be commonly used to reflect learning outcomes in the published Geriatrics medical education literature. Additionally, there is significant variation in competencies guiding validated instruments, and currently, no published tools that directly align with the Age-Friendly competencies.

医生准备好照顾老年人了吗?对美国医学教育课程中有效的老年病学知识评估工具的范围审查。
背景:为了确定医疗培训生照顾老年人的准备,需要适当的评估工具。很少有经过验证的已发表的工具能够高度可靠地衡量老年病学知识,而且尚不清楚这些工具用于衡量医学实习生学习成果的频率。目的:我们对经过验证的老年病知识评估工具进行了范围审查,这些工具可用于评估医生的老年病知识,特别关注与老年友好卫生系统倡议和老年病5 Ms框架(流动性、思维、药物、多重复杂性、最重要的事情)的工具一致性,这些框架构成了医学生的老年病能力。方法:系统检索2023年以前的MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science Core Collection和ERIC四个电子数据库,确定用于评估医生在实践和培训中的知识的老年病学知识评估工具。结果:36项使用经过验证的老年病学知识工具来评估知识和/或技能变化的研究被选中进行最终分析。50%的研究报告了一种新仪器的开发和验证。没有仪器是基于与老年病学5 Ms一致的最新医学生能力。结论:尽管有有效的工具可用,但在已发表的老年医学教育文献中,它们似乎并不常用来反映学习结果。此外,在指导经过验证的工具的能力方面存在显著差异,目前,没有发布的工具直接与年龄友好型能力相一致。
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
GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
18.80%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: Gerontology & Geriatrics Education is geared toward the exchange of information related to research, curriculum development, course and program evaluation, classroom and practice innovation, and other topics with educational implications for gerontology and geriatrics. It is designed to appeal to a broad range of students, teachers, practitioners, administrators, and policy makers and is dedicated to improving awareness of best practices and resources for gerontologists and gerontology/geriatrics educators. Peer Review Policy: All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by two anonymous referees.
×
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