Emma Bartle, Sandra E Carr, Rebecca Olson, Lise Mogensen, Sarah Hyde, Nicole Shepherd, Wendy Hu, Alexia Pena, Philip Roberts, Natalie Downes, Scott McCoombe, Jennifer Cleland
{"title":"扩大药物获取:现实主义回顾。","authors":"Emma Bartle, Sandra E Carr, Rebecca Olson, Lise Mogensen, Sarah Hyde, Nicole Shepherd, Wendy Hu, Alexia Pena, Philip Roberts, Natalie Downes, Scott McCoombe, Jennifer Cleland","doi":"10.1111/medu.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite policy drivers and \"on-the-ground\" activity to encourage applicants from under-represented minority groups (URMs) into medicine, their representation remains limited because of the challenge of overcoming complex societal and systemic barriers. This realist review sought to review the existing literature to identify underlying CIMOs with respect to widening access (WA) to medical school.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a realist literature review informed by Pawson's five iterative strategies and consistent with RAMESES standards. We searched eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, JBI EBP, ERIC, Scopus, Proquest Public Health) to identify studies published from 1990 to April 2023 on WA pathways into medical school. We used a realist logic of analysis to examine how the mechanisms of action (M) identified for each WA intervention (I) triggered outcomes (O) related to widening access, and thus increasing cohort diversity, in different contexts (C).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two of 6300 studies identified and screened met the inclusion criteria. Most papers were from Global North countries (31/32). They reported five types of WA interventions: Minimising Bias; Modifying selection criteria; Community Collaboration; Preparing applicants for selection and studying medicine; Combining College with Medical School. Mechanisms were categorised as addressing institutional, situational, or dispositional barriers to studying medicine. Interventions were classified as addressing WA at a system-level or individual-level. There were four outcomes of interest: established widened selection pathways; an increased number of pathway applications for medical school; a change in offers for medical school, and increased cohort diversity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review highlights that issues with access to medical education are still being seen as individual not systemic, with most reported WA interventions focussing predominantly on addressing situational and dispositional 'barriers' to medical education. The dominant implicit positioning of the applicant as the only aspect in the WA process in need of change reinforces the status quo.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Widening access to medicine: A realist review.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Bartle, Sandra E Carr, Rebecca Olson, Lise Mogensen, Sarah Hyde, Nicole Shepherd, Wendy Hu, Alexia Pena, Philip Roberts, Natalie Downes, Scott McCoombe, Jennifer Cleland\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/medu.70017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite policy drivers and \\\"on-the-ground\\\" activity to encourage applicants from under-represented minority groups (URMs) into medicine, their representation remains limited because of the challenge of overcoming complex societal and systemic barriers. This realist review sought to review the existing literature to identify underlying CIMOs with respect to widening access (WA) to medical school.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a realist literature review informed by Pawson's five iterative strategies and consistent with RAMESES standards. We searched eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, JBI EBP, ERIC, Scopus, Proquest Public Health) to identify studies published from 1990 to April 2023 on WA pathways into medical school. We used a realist logic of analysis to examine how the mechanisms of action (M) identified for each WA intervention (I) triggered outcomes (O) related to widening access, and thus increasing cohort diversity, in different contexts (C).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two of 6300 studies identified and screened met the inclusion criteria. Most papers were from Global North countries (31/32). They reported five types of WA interventions: Minimising Bias; Modifying selection criteria; Community Collaboration; Preparing applicants for selection and studying medicine; Combining College with Medical School. Mechanisms were categorised as addressing institutional, situational, or dispositional barriers to studying medicine. Interventions were classified as addressing WA at a system-level or individual-level. There were four outcomes of interest: established widened selection pathways; an increased number of pathway applications for medical school; a change in offers for medical school, and increased cohort diversity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review highlights that issues with access to medical education are still being seen as individual not systemic, with most reported WA interventions focussing predominantly on addressing situational and dispositional 'barriers' to medical education. The dominant implicit positioning of the applicant as the only aspect in the WA process in need of change reinforces the status quo.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-08\",\"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.70017\",\"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.70017","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
尽管有政策驱动因素和“实地”活动鼓励来自代表性不足的少数群体(urm)的申请人进入医学,但由于克服复杂的社会和系统障碍的挑战,他们的代表性仍然有限。这篇现实主义评论试图审查现有文献,以确定在扩大进入医学院的机会方面潜在的cmo。方法:我们以Pawson的五种迭代策略为基础,根据RAMESES标准进行了现实主义文献综述。我们检索了8个电子数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL Plus、PsycInfo、JBI EBP、ERIC、Scopus、Proquest Public Health),以确定从1990年至2023年4月发表的关于WA进入医学院途径的研究。我们使用现实主义分析逻辑来检验每种WA干预措施(I)的作用机制(M)如何触发与扩大准入相关的结果(O),从而在不同背景下增加队列多样性(C)。结果:6300项研究中有32项符合纳入标准。大部分论文来自Global North国家(31/32)。他们报告了五种类型的WA干预措施:最小化偏见;修改选拔标准;社区协作;为申请人挑选和学习医学做准备;把大学和医学院结合起来。机制被分类为解决体制、情境或性格障碍的医学研究。干预措施分为系统级和个人级。有四个有趣的结果:建立了拓宽的选择途径;医学院衔接课程申请数量增加;医学院录取通知的变化,以及学生群体多样性的增加。结论:本综述强调,获得医学教育的问题仍然被视为个体问题,而不是系统性问题,大多数报道的西澳大利亚州干预措施主要侧重于解决医学教育的情境和性格“障碍”。申请人作为WA过程中唯一需要改变的方面的显性隐性定位强化了现状。
Introduction: Despite policy drivers and "on-the-ground" activity to encourage applicants from under-represented minority groups (URMs) into medicine, their representation remains limited because of the challenge of overcoming complex societal and systemic barriers. This realist review sought to review the existing literature to identify underlying CIMOs with respect to widening access (WA) to medical school.
Method: We conducted a realist literature review informed by Pawson's five iterative strategies and consistent with RAMESES standards. We searched eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, JBI EBP, ERIC, Scopus, Proquest Public Health) to identify studies published from 1990 to April 2023 on WA pathways into medical school. We used a realist logic of analysis to examine how the mechanisms of action (M) identified for each WA intervention (I) triggered outcomes (O) related to widening access, and thus increasing cohort diversity, in different contexts (C).
Results: Thirty-two of 6300 studies identified and screened met the inclusion criteria. Most papers were from Global North countries (31/32). They reported five types of WA interventions: Minimising Bias; Modifying selection criteria; Community Collaboration; Preparing applicants for selection and studying medicine; Combining College with Medical School. Mechanisms were categorised as addressing institutional, situational, or dispositional barriers to studying medicine. Interventions were classified as addressing WA at a system-level or individual-level. There were four outcomes of interest: established widened selection pathways; an increased number of pathway applications for medical school; a change in offers for medical school, and increased cohort diversity.
Conclusions: This review highlights that issues with access to medical education are still being seen as individual not systemic, with most reported WA interventions focussing predominantly on addressing situational and dispositional 'barriers' to medical education. The dominant implicit positioning of the applicant as the only aspect in the WA process in need of change reinforces the status quo.
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