Learning technologies and health technologies in complementary medicine clinical work and education: Examination of the perspectives of academics and students in Australia and the United States
{"title":"Learning technologies and health technologies in complementary medicine clinical work and education: Examination of the perspectives of academics and students in Australia and the United States","authors":"Alastair C. Gray, Amie Steel, Jon Adams","doi":"10.1016/j.aimed.2021.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The use of technologies continues to grow in healthcare provision, and learning technologies now dominate tertiary education. Meanwhile, complementary medicine (CM) constitutes a substantial component of contemporary healthcare, yet the education of existing and future CM practitioners has received little empirical attention. In direct response, our study examines the perceptions of CM students and faculty related specifically to health and learning technologies in clinical CM work and education.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A cross-sectional online survey was administered to all current students (n = 4851) and tenured, contracted and adjunct academics (n =530) at two CM education institutions – in the US and in Australia.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most student respondents (n = 134, 49%) reported that they either felt they were unsure if they would use telehealth in clinical practice or that they would use it (n = 116, 43%). The majority of all academic respondents did not believe it possible to conduct basic clinical processes online such as reading a patient's body language (M3.8, SD 1.0), conducting quality clinical training in CM settings (M3.2, SD 1.3) or learning rapport skills (M3.2, SD 1.2). Of those academics who were also in clinical practice, only a small number reported conducting virtual consultations in their CM work (n = 7,15.9%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our findings highlight a potential disparity of perceptions between academics and students in these CM educational settings especially in relation to telehealth. Academics expressed hesitancy to fully rely on technologies to develop practitioners in a field where ‘formation of professional character’ is considered so important.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7343,"journal":{"name":"Advances in integrative medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in integrative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212958821000896","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: 2
Abstract
Background
The use of technologies continues to grow in healthcare provision, and learning technologies now dominate tertiary education. Meanwhile, complementary medicine (CM) constitutes a substantial component of contemporary healthcare, yet the education of existing and future CM practitioners has received little empirical attention. In direct response, our study examines the perceptions of CM students and faculty related specifically to health and learning technologies in clinical CM work and education.
Methods
A cross-sectional online survey was administered to all current students (n = 4851) and tenured, contracted and adjunct academics (n =530) at two CM education institutions – in the US and in Australia.
Results
Most student respondents (n = 134, 49%) reported that they either felt they were unsure if they would use telehealth in clinical practice or that they would use it (n = 116, 43%). The majority of all academic respondents did not believe it possible to conduct basic clinical processes online such as reading a patient's body language (M3.8, SD 1.0), conducting quality clinical training in CM settings (M3.2, SD 1.3) or learning rapport skills (M3.2, SD 1.2). Of those academics who were also in clinical practice, only a small number reported conducting virtual consultations in their CM work (n = 7,15.9%).
Conclusion
Our findings highlight a potential disparity of perceptions between academics and students in these CM educational settings especially in relation to telehealth. Academics expressed hesitancy to fully rely on technologies to develop practitioners in a field where ‘formation of professional character’ is considered so important.
期刊介绍:
Advances in Integrative Medicine (AIMED) is an international peer-reviewed, evidence-based research and review journal that is multi-disciplinary within the fields of Integrative and Complementary Medicine. The journal focuses on rigorous quantitative and qualitative research including systematic reviews, clinical trials and surveys, whilst also welcoming medical hypotheses and clinically-relevant articles and case studies disclosing practical learning tools for the consulting practitioner. By promoting research and practice excellence in the field, and cross collaboration between relevant practitioner groups and associations, the journal aims to advance the practice of IM, identify areas for future research, and improve patient health outcomes. International networking is encouraged through clinical innovation, the establishment of best practice and by providing opportunities for cooperation between organisations and communities.