迈向全面的姑息治疗培训:解决医学教育中的性别和培训阶段差异。

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Future Science OA Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-03 DOI:10.1080/20565623.2025.2553474
Alia Alawneh, Sakhr Alshwayyat, Ayman Shatnawi, Abdalwahab Alenezy, Karam Maraqa
{"title":"迈向全面的姑息治疗培训:解决医学教育中的性别和培训阶段差异。","authors":"Alia Alawneh, Sakhr Alshwayyat, Ayman Shatnawi, Abdalwahab Alenezy, Karam Maraqa","doi":"10.1080/20565623.2025.2553474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Palliative care (PC) education is globally recommended; however, many regions lack sufficient training. This study aimed to evaluate medical students' confidence in PC and pain management and to compare confidence levels according to year of training and both male and female genders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study was conducted at a medical school in northern Jordan. A convenience sample of medical students were asked to fill a survey comprising the Self-Efficacy in Palliative Care Scale (SEPC) and Thanatophobia Scale (TS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 289 students were enrolled in this study. In their first year of clinical training, 137 were female and 130 were students. In the SEPC, discussing the patient's death with the patient was the domain in which the students were least confident. Confidence in working on a multi-professional PC team was recognized as the highest skill area among the participants. Confidence in students' ability to assess patients' pain needs was identified as the most confident skill, whereas their ability to prescribe appropriate pain control medications was the lowest. There was a significant difference in TS between the female and male medical students.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An integrated pain and PC curriculum in medical schools is essential to help students achieve confidence in pain management and palliative care.</p>","PeriodicalId":12568,"journal":{"name":"Future Science OA","volume":"11 1","pages":"2553474"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12498538/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward comprehensive palliative care training: addressing gender and training stage differences in medical education.\",\"authors\":\"Alia Alawneh, Sakhr Alshwayyat, Ayman Shatnawi, Abdalwahab Alenezy, Karam Maraqa\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20565623.2025.2553474\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Palliative care (PC) education is globally recommended; however, many regions lack sufficient training. This study aimed to evaluate medical students' confidence in PC and pain management and to compare confidence levels according to year of training and both male and female genders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study was conducted at a medical school in northern Jordan. A convenience sample of medical students were asked to fill a survey comprising the Self-Efficacy in Palliative Care Scale (SEPC) and Thanatophobia Scale (TS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 289 students were enrolled in this study. In their first year of clinical training, 137 were female and 130 were students. In the SEPC, discussing the patient's death with the patient was the domain in which the students were least confident. Confidence in working on a multi-professional PC team was recognized as the highest skill area among the participants. Confidence in students' ability to assess patients' pain needs was identified as the most confident skill, whereas their ability to prescribe appropriate pain control medications was the lowest. There was a significant difference in TS between the female and male medical students.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An integrated pain and PC curriculum in medical schools is essential to help students achieve confidence in pain management and palliative care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future Science OA\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"2553474\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12498538/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future Science OA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20565623.2025.2553474\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future Science OA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20565623.2025.2553474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:姑息治疗(PC)教育是全球推荐的;然而,许多地区缺乏足够的培训。本研究旨在评估医学生对PC和疼痛管理的信心,并比较不同培训年限和性别的信心水平。方法:本观察性研究在约旦北部的一所医学院进行。本研究以医学生为调查对象,采用姑息治疗自我效能量表(SEPC)和死亡恐惧症量表(TS)进行问卷调查。结果:本研究共纳入289名学生。在第一年的临床培训中,有137名女性和130名学生。在SEPC中,与病人讨论病人的死亡是学生最不自信的领域。在一个多专业的PC团队中工作的信心被认为是参与者中最高的技能领域。对学生评估病人疼痛需求的能力的信心被认为是最自信的技能,而他们开具适当的疼痛控制药物的能力是最低的。女医学生与男医学生的TS有显著性差异。结论:医学院校的疼痛和PC综合课程对帮助学生获得疼痛管理和姑息治疗的信心至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Toward comprehensive palliative care training: addressing gender and training stage differences in medical education.

Background: Palliative care (PC) education is globally recommended; however, many regions lack sufficient training. This study aimed to evaluate medical students' confidence in PC and pain management and to compare confidence levels according to year of training and both male and female genders.

Methods: This observational study was conducted at a medical school in northern Jordan. A convenience sample of medical students were asked to fill a survey comprising the Self-Efficacy in Palliative Care Scale (SEPC) and Thanatophobia Scale (TS).

Results: In total, 289 students were enrolled in this study. In their first year of clinical training, 137 were female and 130 were students. In the SEPC, discussing the patient's death with the patient was the domain in which the students were least confident. Confidence in working on a multi-professional PC team was recognized as the highest skill area among the participants. Confidence in students' ability to assess patients' pain needs was identified as the most confident skill, whereas their ability to prescribe appropriate pain control medications was the lowest. There was a significant difference in TS between the female and male medical students.

Conclusion: An integrated pain and PC curriculum in medical schools is essential to help students achieve confidence in pain management and palliative care.

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
Future Science OA
Future Science OA MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Future Science OA is an online, open access, peer-reviewed title from the Future Science Group. The journal covers research and discussion related to advances in biotechnology, medicine and health. The journal embraces the importance of publishing all good-quality research with the potential to further the progress of research in these fields. All original research articles will be considered that are within the journal''s scope, and have been conducted with scientific rigour and research integrity. The journal also features review articles, editorials and perspectives, providing readers with a leading source of commentary and analysis. Submissions of the following article types will be considered: -Research articles -Preliminary communications -Short communications -Methodologies -Trial design articles -Trial results (including early-phase and negative studies) -Reviews -Perspectives -Commentaries
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信