Advances in Health Sciences Education最新文献

{"title":"Normative challenges in data governance: insights from global health research","authors":"Mathew Mercuri,&nbsp;Claudia I Emerson","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10351-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10351-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Many important questions in health professions education require datasets that are built from several sources, in some cases using data collected for a different purpose. In building and maintaining these datasets, project leaders will need to make decisions about the data. While such decisions are often construed as technical, there are several normative concerns, such as who should have access, how the data will be used, how products resulting from the data will be shared, and how to ensure privacy of the individuals the data is about is respected, etc. Establishing a framework for data governance can help project leaders in avoiding problems, related to such matters, that could limit what can be learned from the data or that might put the project (or future projects) at risk. In this paper, we highlight several normative challenges to be addressed when determining a data governance framework. Drawing from lessons in global health, we illustrate three kinds of normative challenges for projects that rely on data from multiple sources or involved partnerships across institutions or jurisdictions: (1) legal and regulatory requirements, (2) consent, and (3) equitable sharing and fair distribution.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1453 - 1461"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141307269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sociotechnical imaginaries in academic medicine strategic planning: a document analysis","authors":"Paula Rowland,&nbsp;Madison Brydges,&nbsp;Kulamakan (Mahan) Kulasegaram","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10339-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10339-x","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Purpose Along with other industries, healthcare is becoming increasingly digitized. Our study explores how the field of academic medicine is preparing for this digital future. Method Active strategic plans available in English were collected from faculties of medicine in Canada (<i>n</i> = 14), departments in medical schools (<i>n</i> = 17), academic health science centres (<i>n</i> = 23) and associated research institutes (<i>n</i> = 5). In total, 59 strategic plans were subjected to a practice-oriented form of document analysis, informed by the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries. Results On the one hand, digital health is discursively treated as a continuation of the academic medicine vision, with expansions of physician competencies and of research institutes contributions. These imaginaries do not necessarily disrupt the field of academic medicine as currently configured. On the other hand, there is a vision of digital health pursuing a robust sociotechnical future with transformative implications for how care is conducted, what forms of knowledge are prioritized, how patients and patienthood will be understood, and how data work will be distributed. This imaginary may destabilize existing distributions of knowledge and power. Conclusions Looking through the lens of sociotechnical imaginaries, this study illuminates strategic plans as framing desirable futures, directing attention towards specific ways of understanding problems of healthcare, and mobilizing the resources to knit together social and technical systems in ways that bring these visions to fruition. There are bound to be tensions as these sociotechnical imaginaries are translated into material realities. Many of those tensions and their attempted resolutions will have direct implications for the expectations of health professional graduates, the nature of clinical learning environments, and future relationships with patients. Sociology of digital health and science and technology studies can provide useful insights to guide leaders in academic medicine shaping these digital futures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1435 - 1451"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369035/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141155395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Advancing collaboration in health professions education in the general practice domain, developing a national research agenda","authors":"Esther de Groot,&nbsp;Marianne Mak-van der Vossen,&nbsp;Irene Slootweg,&nbsp;Meryem Çorum,&nbsp;Anneke Kramer,&nbsp;Jean Muris,&nbsp;Nynke Scherpbier,&nbsp;Bart Thoonen,&nbsp;Roger Damoiseaux","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10340-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10340-4","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Health professions education (HPE) research in the General Practice domain (GP-HPE) is vital for high-quality healthcare. Collaboration among GP-HPE researchers is crucial but challenging. Formulating a research agenda, involving stakeholders, and fostering inter-institutional collaboration can address these challenges and connect educational research and practice.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used Q-methodology to explore perspectives on GP-HPE research of participants from all Dutch postgraduate GP training institutes. Participants individually sorted statements based on the relevance of future GP-HPE research for educational practice. Data analysis comprised inverted factor analysis, rotation, and qualitative interpretation of configurations of all statements. The National Meeting on Educational Research took a participatory approach.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 73 participants with diverse involvement in GP-HPE research. We identified five distinct perspectives, each representing a research focus area for developing and innovating GP education: the clinician scientist, the socially engaged GP, the specific GP identity, the GP as an entrepreneur, and the GP engaged in lifelong learning.</p><h3>Discussion</h3><p>The resulting five perspectives align with General Practice hallmarks. Q-methodology and a participatory approach facilitated collaboration among stakeholders. Successful inter-institutional collaboration requires a common goal, neutral leadership, participant commitment, regular meetings, audit trail support, process transparency, and reflexivity. Future research should address evidence gaps within these perspectives.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Using Q-methodology turned out to be valuable for compiling a national research agenda for GP-HPE research. The research process helped to cross boundaries between researchers in different institutions, thus putting inter-institutional collaborative advantage center stage. Our approach could provide a conceivable procedure for HPE researchers worldwide.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1417 - 1434"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369045/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141155377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From admissions to licensure: education data associations from a multi-centre undergraduate medical education collaboration","authors":"S. Chahine,&nbsp;I. Bartman,&nbsp;K. Kulasegaram,&nbsp;D Archibald,&nbsp;P. Wang,&nbsp;C. Wilson,&nbsp;B. Ross,&nbsp;E. Cameron,&nbsp;J. Hogenbirk,&nbsp;C. Barber,&nbsp;R. Burgess,&nbsp;E. Katsoulas,&nbsp;C. Touchie,&nbsp;L Grierson","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10326-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10326-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper reports the findings of a Canada based multi-institutional study designed to investigate the relationships between admissions criteria, in-program assessments, and performance on licensing exams. The study’s objective is to provide valuable insights for improving educational practices across different institutions. Data were gathered from six medical schools: McMaster University, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine University, Queen’s University, University of Ottawa, University of Toronto, and Western University. The dataset includes graduates who undertook the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 1 (MCCQE1) between 2015 and 2017. The data were categorized into five distinct sections: demographic information as well as four matrices: admissions, course performance, objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and clerkship performance. Common and unique variables were identified through an extensive consensus-building process. Hierarchical linear regression and a manual stepwise variable selection approach were used for analysis. Analyses were performed on data set encompassing graduates of all six medical schools as well as on individual data sets from each school. For the combined data set the final model estimated 32% of the variance in performance on licensing exams, highlighting variables such as Age at Admission, Sex, Biomedical Knowledge, the first post-clerkship OSCE, and a clerkship theta score. Individual school analysis explained 41–60% of the variance in MCCQE1 outcomes, with comparable variables to the analysis from of the combined data set identified as significant independent variables. Therefore, strongly emphasising the need for variety of high-quality assessment on the educational continuum. This study underscores the importance of sharing data to enable educational insights. This study also had its challenges when it came to the access and aggregation of data. As such we advocate for the establishment of a common framework for multi-institutional educational research, facilitating studies and evaluations across diverse institutions. This study demonstrates the scientific potential of collaborative data analysis in enhancing educational outcomes. It offers a deeper understanding of the factors influencing performance on licensure exams and emphasizes the need for addressing data gaps to advance multi-institutional research for educational improvements.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1393 - 1415"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141081912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Historicity and the impossible present","authors":"Rachel H. Ellaway","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10330-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10330-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this editorial the editor considers issues of historicity (understanding things in their historical context) in health professions education and the sciences thereof, and argues for more attention to historical and other contextual factors in creating and appraising the research literature.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 2","pages":"361 - 365"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140870330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"“Teaching capital”– a sociological analysis of medical educator portfolios for promotion","authors":"Mette Krogh Christensen,&nbsp;I. M. Pedersen,&nbsp;G. Wichmann-Hansen","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10333-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10333-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Medical educator portfolios (MEP) are increasingly recognized as a tool for developing and documenting teaching performance in Health Professions Education. However, there is a need to better understand the complex interplay between institutional guidelines and how teachers decode those guidelines and assign value to teaching merits. To gain a deeper understanding of this dynamic, this study employed a sociological analysis to understand how medical educators aspiring to professorships use MEPs to display their teaching merits and how cultural capital is reflected in these artefacts. We collected 36 medical educator portfolios for promotion from a large research-intensive university and conducted a deductive content analysis using institutional guidelines that distinguished between mandatory (accounting for the total body of teaching conducted) and optional content (arguing for pedagogical choices and evidencing the quality, respectively). Our analysis showed that the portfolios primarily included quantifiable data about teaching <i>activities</i>, e.g., numbers of students, topics and classes taught. Notably, they often lacked evidence of quality and scholarship of teaching. Looking at these findings through a Bourdieusian lens revealed that teachers in this social field exchange objectified evidence of hours spent on teaching into teaching capital recognized by their institution. Our findings highlight how institutional guidelines for MEPs construct a pedagogical battlefield, where educators try to decode and exchange the “right” and recognized <i>teaching capital</i>. This indicates that MEPs reflect the norms and practices of the academic field more than individual teaching quality.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 5","pages":"1769 - 1786"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10459-024-10333-3.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140871111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A scoping review of the questionnaires used for the assessment of the perception of undergraduate students of the learning environment in healthcare professions education programs","authors":"Banan Mukhalalati,&nbsp;Ola Yakti,&nbsp;Sara Elshami","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10319-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10319-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The learning environment (LE) includes social interactions, organizational culture, structures, and physical and virtual spaces that influence the learning experiences of students. Despite numerous studies exploring the perception of healthcare professional students (HCPS) of their LE, the validity evidence of the utilized questionnaires remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify questionnaires used to examine the perception of undergraduate HCPS of their LE and to assess their validity evidence. Five key concepts were used: (1) higher education; (2) questionnaire; (3) LE; (4) perception; and (5) health professions (HP). PubMed, ERIC, ProQuest, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies developing or adapting questionnaires to examine LE. This review employed the APERA standards of validity evidence and Beckman et al. (J Gen Intern Med 20:1159–1164, 2005) interpretation of these standards according to 5 categories: content, internal structure, response process, relation to other variables, and consequences. Out of 41 questionnaires included in this review, the analysis revealed a predominant emphasis on content and internal structure categories. However, less than 10% of the included questionnaires provided information in relation to other variables, consequences, and response process categories. Most of the identified questionnaires received extensive coverage in the fields of medicine and nursing, followed by dentistry. This review identified diverse questionnaires utilized for examining the perception of students of their LE across different HPs. Given the limited validity evidence for existing questionnaires, future research should prioritize the development and validation of psychometric measures. This will ultimately ensure sound and evidence-based quality improvement measures of the LE in HP education programs.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1501 - 1538"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369005/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140856646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Inconsistencies in rater-based assessments mainly affect borderline candidates: but using simple heuristics might improve pass-fail decisions","authors":"Stefan K. Schauber,&nbsp;Anne O. Olsen,&nbsp;Erik L. Werner,&nbsp;Morten Magelssen","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10328-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10328-0","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Research in various areas indicates that expert judgment can be highly inconsistent. However, expert judgment is indispensable in many contexts. In medical education, experts often function as examiners in rater-based assessments. Here, disagreement between examiners can have far-reaching consequences. The literature suggests that inconsistencies in ratings depend on the level of performance a to-be-evaluated candidate shows. This possibility has not been addressed deliberately and with appropriate statistical methods. By adopting the theoretical lens of ecological rationality, we evaluate if easily implementable strategies can enhance decision making in real-world assessment contexts.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We address two objectives. First, we investigate the dependence of rater-consistency on performance levels. We recorded videos of mock-exams and had examiners (N=10) evaluate four students’ performances and compare inconsistencies in performance ratings between examiner-pairs using a bootstrapping procedure. Our second objective is to provide an approach that aids decision making by implementing simple heuristics.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>We found that discrepancies were largely a function of the level of performance the candidates showed. Lower performances were rated more inconsistently than excellent performances. Furthermore, our analyses indicated that the use of simple heuristics might improve decisions in examiner pairs.</p><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Inconsistencies in performance judgments continue to be a matter of concern, and we provide empirical evidence for them to be related to candidate performance. We discuss implications for research and the advantages of adopting the perspective of ecological rationality. We point to directions both for further research and for development of assessment practices.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 5","pages":"1749 - 1767"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10459-024-10328-0.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140669132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship","authors":"Susan C. Mirabal,&nbsp;Darcy A. Reed,&nbsp;Yvonne Steinert,&nbsp;Cynthia R. Whitehead,&nbsp;Scott M. Wright,&nbsp;Sean Tackett","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10331-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10331-5","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific “focus prompt,” (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 5","pages":"1809 - 1823"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140683573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Should I do a synthesis (i.e. literature review)?","authors":"H. Carrie Chen,&nbsp;Ayelet Kuper,&nbsp;Jennifer Cleland,&nbsp;Patricia O’Sullivan","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10335-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10459-024-10335-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the question of whether one should conduct a literature review or knowledge synthesis, considering the why, when, and how, as well as its potential pitfalls. The goal is to guide supervisors and students who are considering whether to embark on a literature review in education research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 2","pages":"367 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140686993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}