Developing indicators for monitoring and evaluating the primary healthcare approach in health sciences education at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, using a Delphi technique

IF 0.4 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
{"title":"Developing indicators for monitoring and evaluating the primary healthcare approach in health sciences education at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, using a Delphi technique","authors":"","doi":"10.7196/ajhpe.2023.v15i1.1602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\n\nBackground. The Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS), University of Cape Town (UCT) adopted the primary healthcare (PHC) approach as its lead theme for teaching, research and clinical service in 1994. A PHC working group was set up in 2017 to build consensus on indicators to monitor and evaluate the PHC approach in health sciences education in the FHS, UCT.Objective. To develop a set of indicators through a Delphi technique for monitoring and evaluating the PHC approach in health sciences curricula in the FHS, UCT.\nMethods. A national multidisciplinary Delphi panel was presented with 61 indicators of social accountability from the international Training for Health Equity Network (THEnet) for scoring in round 1. Nineteen PHC indicators, derived from a mnemonic used in the FHS, UCT for teaching core PHC principles, were added in round 2 to the 20 highest ranked THEnet indicators from round 1, on recommendation of the panel. Scoring criteria used were relevance (in both rounds), feasibility/measurability (round 1 only) and application of the PHC indicators to undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and assessment (round 2 only).\nResults. Of the 39 indicators presented in the second round, 11 had an overall relevance score >85% based on the responses of 16 of 20 panellists (80% response rate). These 11 indicators have been grouped by learner needs (safety of learners – 88%, teaching is appropriate to learners’ needs and context – 86%); healthcare user needs (continuity of care – 94%, holistic understanding of healthcare – 88%, respecting human rights – 88%, providing accessible care to all – 88%, providing care that is acceptable to users and their families – 87%, providing evidence-based care – 87%); and community needs (promoting health through health education – 88%, education programme reflects communities’ needs – 86%, teaching embodies social accountability – 86%).\nConclusion. The selected indicators reflect priorities relevant to the FHS, UCT and are measurable and applicable to undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. They provided the basis for a case study of teaching the PHC approach to our undergraduate students.\n\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":43683,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Health Professions Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Health Professions Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/ajhpe.2023.v15i1.1602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. The Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS), University of Cape Town (UCT) adopted the primary healthcare (PHC) approach as its lead theme for teaching, research and clinical service in 1994. A PHC working group was set up in 2017 to build consensus on indicators to monitor and evaluate the PHC approach in health sciences education in the FHS, UCT.Objective. To develop a set of indicators through a Delphi technique for monitoring and evaluating the PHC approach in health sciences curricula in the FHS, UCT. Methods. A national multidisciplinary Delphi panel was presented with 61 indicators of social accountability from the international Training for Health Equity Network (THEnet) for scoring in round 1. Nineteen PHC indicators, derived from a mnemonic used in the FHS, UCT for teaching core PHC principles, were added in round 2 to the 20 highest ranked THEnet indicators from round 1, on recommendation of the panel. Scoring criteria used were relevance (in both rounds), feasibility/measurability (round 1 only) and application of the PHC indicators to undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and assessment (round 2 only). Results. Of the 39 indicators presented in the second round, 11 had an overall relevance score >85% based on the responses of 16 of 20 panellists (80% response rate). These 11 indicators have been grouped by learner needs (safety of learners – 88%, teaching is appropriate to learners’ needs and context – 86%); healthcare user needs (continuity of care – 94%, holistic understanding of healthcare – 88%, respecting human rights – 88%, providing accessible care to all – 88%, providing care that is acceptable to users and their families – 87%, providing evidence-based care – 87%); and community needs (promoting health through health education – 88%, education programme reflects communities’ needs – 86%, teaching embodies social accountability – 86%). Conclusion. The selected indicators reflect priorities relevant to the FHS, UCT and are measurable and applicable to undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. They provided the basis for a case study of teaching the PHC approach to our undergraduate students.
在南非开普敦大学,利用德尔菲技术制定指标,监测和评价保健科学教育中的初级保健方法
背景1994年,开普敦大学健康科学学院(FHS)将初级保健方法作为其教学、研究和临床服务的主要主题。2017年成立了一个PHC工作组,旨在就监测和评估FHS健康科学教育中PHC方法的指标达成共识。目标。通过德尔菲技术制定一套指标,用于监测和评估佛罗里达大学健康科学课程中的PHC方法,UCT.方法。一个国家多学科德尔菲小组收到了来自国际卫生公平培训网络(THEnet)的61项社会责任指标,用于在第一轮中得分。根据专家组的建议,第二轮将19个PHC指标添加到第一轮排名最高的20个THEnet指标中,这些指标源于FHS中使用的助记符,即教授核心PHC原则的UCT。评分标准包括相关性(两轮)、可行性/可测量性(仅第一轮)以及PHC指标在本科生和研究生教学和评估中的应用(仅第二轮)。这11项指标按学习者需求进行了分组(学习者的安全性为88%,教学适合学习者的需求和背景——86%);医疗保健用户需求(护理的连续性–94%,对医疗保健的全面理解–88%,尊重人权–88%,为所有人提供可获得的护理–88%,提供用户及其家人可接受的护理–87%,提供循证护理–87%);以及社区需求(通过健康教育促进健康–88%,教育计划反映社区需求–86%,教学体现社会责任–86%)。结论。所选指标反映了与FHS、UCT相关的优先事项,可测量并适用于本科生和研究生课程。它们为我们的本科生教授PHC方法的案例研究提供了基础。
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
African Journal of Health Professions Education
African Journal of Health Professions Education HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信