反思参与的范围:我们如何让患者作为合作伙伴参与教育?

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Amber Bennett-Weston, Simon Gay, Elizabeth S Anderson
{"title":"反思参与的范围:我们如何让患者作为合作伙伴参与教育?","authors":"Amber Bennett-Weston, Simon Gay, Elizabeth S Anderson","doi":"10.1111/medu.15484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Spectrum of Involvement describes six levels of active patient involvement in healthcare education. Only at the highest levels are patients described as 'equal partners'. Although this framework was never intended to be hierarchical, healthcare educators continue to strive towards aspirations for involving patients as 'equal partners' in education. However, we do not know what these partnerships mean for all stakeholders and how they can be achieved in practice. This study explores key stakeholders' understandings and experiences of patient partnerships in healthcare education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative case study design was adopted, underpinned by a social constructivist philosophical stance. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 10) and educators (n = 10) from across a Medical School and a Healthcare School. Five focus groups were held with penultimate year students (n = 20) from across the two Schools. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three themes were generated: (i) equal partnerships are neither feasible nor desirable; (ii) partnership is about being and feeling valued; and (iii) valuing patients as partners. Patients did not always desire the highest levels of involvement, as 'equal partners' in education. All stakeholders agreed that partnership need not be synonymous with equality. Instead, they contended that true partnerships were about valuing patients for their contributions at any level of involvement. Remuneration, student feedback, training and providing institutional access were viewed as important methods of valuing patients as partners.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients, educators and students questioned the notion that patient partnerships are only achievable at the highest levels of involvement. Critical application of the Spectrum of Involvement in future research and education is encouraged. This study addresses a gap in the literature, providing tangible approaches to valuing patients as partners that are endorsed by all stakeholders. We propose a model for achieving valued patient partnerships in educational practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflecting on the Spectrum of Involvement: How do we involve patients as partners in education?\",\"authors\":\"Amber Bennett-Weston, Simon Gay, Elizabeth S Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/medu.15484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Spectrum of Involvement describes six levels of active patient involvement in healthcare education. Only at the highest levels are patients described as 'equal partners'. Although this framework was never intended to be hierarchical, healthcare educators continue to strive towards aspirations for involving patients as 'equal partners' in education. However, we do not know what these partnerships mean for all stakeholders and how they can be achieved in practice. This study explores key stakeholders' understandings and experiences of patient partnerships in healthcare education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative case study design was adopted, underpinned by a social constructivist philosophical stance. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 10) and educators (n = 10) from across a Medical School and a Healthcare School. Five focus groups were held with penultimate year students (n = 20) from across the two Schools. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three themes were generated: (i) equal partnerships are neither feasible nor desirable; (ii) partnership is about being and feeling valued; and (iii) valuing patients as partners. Patients did not always desire the highest levels of involvement, as 'equal partners' in education. All stakeholders agreed that partnership need not be synonymous with equality. Instead, they contended that true partnerships were about valuing patients for their contributions at any level of involvement. Remuneration, student feedback, training and providing institutional access were viewed as important methods of valuing patients as partners.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients, educators and students questioned the notion that patient partnerships are only achievable at the highest levels of involvement. Critical application of the Spectrum of Involvement in future research and education is encouraged. This study addresses a gap in the literature, providing tangible approaches to valuing patients as partners that are endorsed by all stakeholders. We propose a model for achieving valued patient partnerships in educational practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"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.15484\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15484","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

摘要

背景:参与光谱》描述了患者积极参与医疗保健教育的六个层次。只有在最高级别,患者才被描述为 "平等的合作伙伴"。尽管这一框架从未打算划分等级,但医疗教育工作者仍在继续努力,希望让患者作为 "平等伙伴 "参与教育。然而,我们并不知道这种伙伴关系对所有利益相关者意味着什么,以及如何在实践中实现。本研究探讨了主要利益相关者对医疗保健教育中患者伙伴关系的理解和经验:方法:采用定性案例研究设计,以社会建构主义哲学立场为基础。对来自一所医学院和一所保健学校的患者(10 人)和教育者(10 人)进行了半结构化访谈。与来自两所学校的倒数第二年学生(n = 20)进行了五次焦点小组讨论。采用反思性主题分析法对数据进行了分析:产生了三个主题:(i) 平等的伙伴关系既不可行,也不可取;(ii) 伙伴关系关乎被重视和感觉被重视;(iii) 重视作为合作伙伴的患者。患者并不总是希望作为 "平等伙伴 "参与到教育中来。所有利益相关者都认为,伙伴关系不一定是平等的同义词。相反,他们认为,真正的伙伴关系是重视患者在任何参与程度上的贡献。薪酬、学生反馈、培训和提供机构准入被视为重视患者作为合作伙伴的重要方法:患者、教育者和学生对患者伙伴关系只有在最高级别的参与中才能实现的观点提出了质疑。我们鼓励在未来的研究和教育中批判性地应用 "参与光谱"。本研究填补了文献中的空白,为重视患者作为合作伙伴提供了切实可行的方法,并得到了所有利益相关者的认可。我们提出了在教育实践中实现重视患者伙伴关系的模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reflecting on the Spectrum of Involvement: How do we involve patients as partners in education?

Background: The Spectrum of Involvement describes six levels of active patient involvement in healthcare education. Only at the highest levels are patients described as 'equal partners'. Although this framework was never intended to be hierarchical, healthcare educators continue to strive towards aspirations for involving patients as 'equal partners' in education. However, we do not know what these partnerships mean for all stakeholders and how they can be achieved in practice. This study explores key stakeholders' understandings and experiences of patient partnerships in healthcare education.

Methods: A qualitative case study design was adopted, underpinned by a social constructivist philosophical stance. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 10) and educators (n = 10) from across a Medical School and a Healthcare School. Five focus groups were held with penultimate year students (n = 20) from across the two Schools. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: Three themes were generated: (i) equal partnerships are neither feasible nor desirable; (ii) partnership is about being and feeling valued; and (iii) valuing patients as partners. Patients did not always desire the highest levels of involvement, as 'equal partners' in education. All stakeholders agreed that partnership need not be synonymous with equality. Instead, they contended that true partnerships were about valuing patients for their contributions at any level of involvement. Remuneration, student feedback, training and providing institutional access were viewed as important methods of valuing patients as partners.

Conclusion: Patients, educators and students questioned the notion that patient partnerships are only achievable at the highest levels of involvement. Critical application of the Spectrum of Involvement in future research and education is encouraged. This study addresses a gap in the literature, providing tangible approaches to valuing patients as partners that are endorsed by all stakeholders. We propose a model for achieving valued patient partnerships in educational practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信