Patient and public engagement in the CanMEDS framework: Which patients? Which publics?

IF 6.2 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Brett Schrewe, Maria Athina Martimianakis, Claudia W Ruitenberg
{"title":"Patient and public engagement in the CanMEDS framework: Which patients? Which publics?","authors":"Brett Schrewe, Maria Athina Martimianakis, Claudia W Ruitenberg","doi":"10.1111/medu.70306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Medical education institutions increasingly employ patient and public engagement (PPE) to inform their learning activities. While this shift is highly welcome, it is equally important to consider whether and how patient and public perspectives have been incorporated in globally influential texts, such as the CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework, that govern the contexts in which these activities play out, particularly as this framework undergoes revision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We explored PPE in the creation and revision of CanMEDS, applying textual analysis to an archive that included the current framework, its drafts and revision documents, earlier iterations (e.g. CanMEDS 2005 and 2000) and ancillary texts. We specifically examined patient and public involvement on committees, in expert working groups and in consultation processes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings indicate that despite stated desires to include 'the perspectives of the people who depend on Canadian physicians for their health care', there was minimal PPE in the 3-year revision process that led to CanMEDS 2015. Although data on patient and public perspectives were included in the original CanMEDS 2000 framework, these were imported from a provincially focused project from more than 30 years ago.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>If competency-based medical education systems wish to realise their promise of meeting societal needs, they must embrace strategies that regularly centre the perspectives of the patients and publics who comprise that society in the design and content of their foundational frameworks. To do so effectively, it may be productive for the field to untangle patient engagement from public engagement and more purposefully apply the wisdom that each of these modalities offers.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70306","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Medical education institutions increasingly employ patient and public engagement (PPE) to inform their learning activities. While this shift is highly welcome, it is equally important to consider whether and how patient and public perspectives have been incorporated in globally influential texts, such as the CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework, that govern the contexts in which these activities play out, particularly as this framework undergoes revision.

Methods: We explored PPE in the creation and revision of CanMEDS, applying textual analysis to an archive that included the current framework, its drafts and revision documents, earlier iterations (e.g. CanMEDS 2005 and 2000) and ancillary texts. We specifically examined patient and public involvement on committees, in expert working groups and in consultation processes.

Results: Findings indicate that despite stated desires to include 'the perspectives of the people who depend on Canadian physicians for their health care', there was minimal PPE in the 3-year revision process that led to CanMEDS 2015. Although data on patient and public perspectives were included in the original CanMEDS 2000 framework, these were imported from a provincially focused project from more than 30 years ago.

Conclusion: If competency-based medical education systems wish to realise their promise of meeting societal needs, they must embrace strategies that regularly centre the perspectives of the patients and publics who comprise that society in the design and content of their foundational frameworks. To do so effectively, it may be productive for the field to untangle patient engagement from public engagement and more purposefully apply the wisdom that each of these modalities offers.

CanMEDS框架中的患者和公众参与:哪些患者?公众?
医学教育机构越来越多地采用患者和公众参与(PPE)来告知他们的学习活动。虽然这一转变受到高度欢迎,但同样重要的是要考虑是否以及如何将患者和公众的观点纳入具有全球影响力的文本,例如CanMEDS 2015医师能力框架,这些文本管理着这些活动开展的背景,特别是在该框架正在修订的情况下。方法:我们探索了PPE在CanMEDS创建和修订中的作用,对包括当前框架、草案和修订文件、早期迭代(例如CanMEDS 2005和2000)和辅助文本在内的档案进行了文本分析。我们特别审查了患者和公众在委员会、专家工作组和咨询过程中的参与情况。结果:研究结果表明,尽管声明希望包括“依赖加拿大医生进行医疗保健的人的观点”,但在导致CanMEDS 2015的3年修订过程中,PPE很少。虽然关于患者和公众观点的数据包含在最初的CanMEDS 2000框架中,但这些数据是从30多年前的一个省级重点项目中引入的。结论:如果以能力为基础的医学教育系统希望实现其满足社会需求的承诺,他们必须在其基础框架的设计和内容中,定期以患者和社会公众的观点为中心。为了有效地做到这一点,对该领域来说,将患者参与与公众参与分开,更有目的地应用每种模式提供的智慧,可能是富有成效的。
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
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
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