From concepts to evaluation: mapping approaches to POCUS training assessment in low- and middle-income countries - a systematic scoping review.

IF 3.6 Q2 Medicine
Friedrich Leopold Eppel, Friederike Hunstig, Benno Kreuels, Sabine Bélard
{"title":"From concepts to evaluation: mapping approaches to POCUS training assessment in low- and middle-income countries - a systematic scoping review.","authors":"Friedrich Leopold Eppel, Friederike Hunstig, Benno Kreuels, Sabine Bélard","doi":"10.5826/tuj.2026.18295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training programs are increasingly implemented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to strengthen diagnostic capacity. Qualitative and sustainable implementation of POCUS capacity requires evaluation of training concepts and programs. In this review we collate approaches of how POCUS training programs and trainee competencies are evaluated in LMICs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review presents a secondary analysis of data from a previous systematic scoping review that included 53 original studies on POCUS training in LMICs, identified through July 2023. Reported evaluation methods for POCUS training were extracted and categorized according to the Donabedian (structure - process - outcome) and Miller/De Biasio (levels of competence) frameworks. Data synthesis focused on the type, timing, and scope of evaluation across structural, procedural, and outcome domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>POCUS training evaluation approaches were highly heterogeneous, with most studies using multiple methods. Pre- and post-course assessments predominated, focusing mainly on knowledge and technical skills. Competence evaluations covered all levels of the Miller/De Biasio framework, though most targeted lower-order levels, while workplace-based assessments were infrequent. When mapped to Donabedian's model, outcome evaluations dominated, whereas structural and process assessments were inconsistently reported. Few studies demonstrated contextual adaptation, validity testing, or long-term evaluation of training outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>POCUS training evaluation in LMICs remains inconsistent and focuses primarily on short-term outcomes and basic competency levels. Applying Donabedian's and Miller/De Biasio's frameworks reveals critical evaluation deficiencies across system and learner dimensions and establishes a conceptional basis for more comprehensive and sustainable POCUS evaluation strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":36911,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Journal","volume":"18 1","pages":"18295"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13335761/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5826/tuj.2026.18295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training programs are increasingly implemented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to strengthen diagnostic capacity. Qualitative and sustainable implementation of POCUS capacity requires evaluation of training concepts and programs. In this review we collate approaches of how POCUS training programs and trainee competencies are evaluated in LMICs.

Methods: This review presents a secondary analysis of data from a previous systematic scoping review that included 53 original studies on POCUS training in LMICs, identified through July 2023. Reported evaluation methods for POCUS training were extracted and categorized according to the Donabedian (structure - process - outcome) and Miller/De Biasio (levels of competence) frameworks. Data synthesis focused on the type, timing, and scope of evaluation across structural, procedural, and outcome domains.

Results: POCUS training evaluation approaches were highly heterogeneous, with most studies using multiple methods. Pre- and post-course assessments predominated, focusing mainly on knowledge and technical skills. Competence evaluations covered all levels of the Miller/De Biasio framework, though most targeted lower-order levels, while workplace-based assessments were infrequent. When mapped to Donabedian's model, outcome evaluations dominated, whereas structural and process assessments were inconsistently reported. Few studies demonstrated contextual adaptation, validity testing, or long-term evaluation of training outcomes.

Conclusions: POCUS training evaluation in LMICs remains inconsistent and focuses primarily on short-term outcomes and basic competency levels. Applying Donabedian's and Miller/De Biasio's frameworks reveals critical evaluation deficiencies across system and learner dimensions and establishes a conceptional basis for more comprehensive and sustainable POCUS evaluation strategies.

从概念到评价:绘制低收入和中等收入国家POCUS培训评估的方法-系统的范围审查。
背景:为了加强诊断能力,在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)越来越多地实施了即时超声(POCUS)培训计划。从质量上和可持续地实施POCUS能力需要对培训概念和方案进行评估。在这篇综述中,我们整理了中低收入国家如何评估POCUS培训计划和受训者能力的方法。方法:本综述对先前系统范围综述的数据进行了二次分析,该综述包括截至2023年7月的53项关于低收入国家POCUS培训的原始研究。根据Donabedian(结构-过程-结果)和Miller/De Biasio(能力水平)框架提取POCUS培训报告的评估方法并进行分类。数据综合侧重于跨结构、程序和结果领域的评估的类型、时间和范围。结果:POCUS训练评估方法具有高度异质性,大多数研究采用多种方法。课程前和课程后评估占主导地位,主要侧重于知识和技术技能。能力评估涵盖了Miller/De Biasio框架的所有层次,尽管大多数针对较低层次,而基于工作场所的评估很少。当映射到Donabedian的模型时,结果评估占主导地位,而结构和过程评估的报告不一致。很少有研究证明了情境适应、有效性测试或训练结果的长期评估。结论:中低收入国家POCUS培训评估仍然不一致,主要关注短期结果和基本能力水平。运用Donabedian和Miller/De Biasio的框架揭示了跨系统和学习者维度的关键评估缺陷,并为更全面和可持续的POCUS评估策略奠定了概念基础。
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
Ultrasound Journal
Ultrasound Journal Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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
小红书