拉丁美洲医师医学教育领导能力工具的跨文化效度研究:一项跨国研究

M. Mano, R. Gomes, G. Werutsky, C. Barrios, G. Marta, C. Villarreal-Garza, A. Frasson, C. Sternberg, Renan O Clara, S. Simon, Fadil T Çitaku, Marianne S. Waldrop, C. Violato, Don Zillioux, Yawar H Khan
{"title":"拉丁美洲医师医学教育领导能力工具的跨文化效度研究:一项跨国研究","authors":"M. Mano, R. Gomes, G. Werutsky, C. Barrios, G. Marta, C. Villarreal-Garza, A. Frasson, C. Sternberg, Renan O Clara, S. Simon, Fadil T Çitaku, Marianne S. Waldrop, C. Violato, Don Zillioux, Yawar H Khan","doi":"10.1200/JGO.19.00243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE Physicians rarely receive formal training in leadership skills. Çitaku and colleagues have identified a set of leadership competencies (LCs) providing validity evidence in North American (NA) and European Union (EU) medical education institutions. We aim to apply this same survey to a sample of Latin American (LA) medical leaders from the oncology community and related areas, compare the results with those of the previous survey, and perform subgroup analyses within the LA cohort. METHODS The survey was sent to nearly 8,000 physicians of participating professional organizations. In addition to the 63 questions, we also collected data on the type of institution, country, specialty, sex, age, years of experience in oncology, and leadership position. RESULTS The 217 LA respondents placed the highest value on task management competencies (91.37% reported these as important or very important v 87.0% of NA/EU respondents; P < .0001), followed by self-management (87.45% of LA respondents v 87.55% of NA/EU respondents; P = not significant [NS]), social responsibility (86.83% of LA respondents v 87.48% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), innovation (86.69% of LA respondents v 85.31% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), and leading others (83.31% of LA respondents v 84.71% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS). Social responsibility, which was first in importance in the NA/EU survey, was only third in the LA survey. Subgroup analyses showed significant variations in the ratings of specific LCs within the LA population. CONCLUSION LCs valued by LA leaders somewhat differ from those valued by their NA and EU counterparts, implying that cultural aspects might influence the perception of desired LCs. We also detected variations in the responses within the LA population. Our data indicate that current physician leadership training programs should be tailored to suit specific needs and cultural aspects of each region. Further validity studies of this instrument with other samples and cultures are warranted.","PeriodicalId":15862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JGO.19.00243","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-Cultural Validity Study of a Medical Education Leadership Competencies Instrument in Latin American Physicians: A Multinational Study\",\"authors\":\"M. Mano, R. Gomes, G. Werutsky, C. Barrios, G. Marta, C. Villarreal-Garza, A. Frasson, C. Sternberg, Renan O Clara, S. Simon, Fadil T Çitaku, Marianne S. Waldrop, C. Violato, Don Zillioux, Yawar H Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/JGO.19.00243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE Physicians rarely receive formal training in leadership skills. Çitaku and colleagues have identified a set of leadership competencies (LCs) providing validity evidence in North American (NA) and European Union (EU) medical education institutions. We aim to apply this same survey to a sample of Latin American (LA) medical leaders from the oncology community and related areas, compare the results with those of the previous survey, and perform subgroup analyses within the LA cohort. METHODS The survey was sent to nearly 8,000 physicians of participating professional organizations. In addition to the 63 questions, we also collected data on the type of institution, country, specialty, sex, age, years of experience in oncology, and leadership position. RESULTS The 217 LA respondents placed the highest value on task management competencies (91.37% reported these as important or very important v 87.0% of NA/EU respondents; P < .0001), followed by self-management (87.45% of LA respondents v 87.55% of NA/EU respondents; P = not significant [NS]), social responsibility (86.83% of LA respondents v 87.48% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), innovation (86.69% of LA respondents v 85.31% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), and leading others (83.31% of LA respondents v 84.71% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS). Social responsibility, which was first in importance in the NA/EU survey, was only third in the LA survey. Subgroup analyses showed significant variations in the ratings of specific LCs within the LA population. CONCLUSION LCs valued by LA leaders somewhat differ from those valued by their NA and EU counterparts, implying that cultural aspects might influence the perception of desired LCs. We also detected variations in the responses within the LA population. Our data indicate that current physician leadership training programs should be tailored to suit specific needs and cultural aspects of each region. Further validity studies of this instrument with other samples and cultures are warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of global oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JGO.19.00243\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of global oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.19.00243\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.19.00243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

医生很少接受领导技能方面的正式培训。Çitaku及其同事已经确定了一套领导能力(LC),为北美(NA)和欧盟(EU)医学教育机构提供了有效性证据。我们的目标是将这项相同的调查应用于来自肿瘤学界和相关领域的拉丁美洲(LA)医学领袖的样本,将结果与之前的调查结果进行比较,并在LA队列中进行亚组分析。方法调查对象为参与调查的专业机构的近8000名医生。除了63个问题外,我们还收集了关于机构类型、国家、专业、性别、年龄、肿瘤学经验年限和领导职位的数据。结果217名LA受访者对任务管理能力的评价最高(91.37%的受访者认为这些能力很重要或非常重要,而NA/EU受访者的评价为87.0%;P<0.0001),其次是自我管理(87.45%的LA受访者对87.55%的NA/EU访问者;P=不显著[NS])、社会责任,创新(86.69%的LA受访者对85.31%的NA/EU受访者;P=NS),以及领先他人(83.31%的LA受访者和84.71%的NA/EU受访者;P=NS.)。社会责任在NA/EU调查中排名第一,在LA调查中排名第三。亚组分析显示,LA人群中特定LC的评分存在显著差异。结论LA领导人重视的LC与NA和欧盟领导人重视的LCs有所不同,这意味着文化方面可能会影响对所需LC的看法。我们还检测到LA人群中反应的变化。我们的数据表明,目前的医生领导力培训计划应该根据每个地区的具体需求和文化方面进行调整。有必要对该仪器与其他样本和培养物进行进一步的有效性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cross-Cultural Validity Study of a Medical Education Leadership Competencies Instrument in Latin American Physicians: A Multinational Study
PURPOSE Physicians rarely receive formal training in leadership skills. Çitaku and colleagues have identified a set of leadership competencies (LCs) providing validity evidence in North American (NA) and European Union (EU) medical education institutions. We aim to apply this same survey to a sample of Latin American (LA) medical leaders from the oncology community and related areas, compare the results with those of the previous survey, and perform subgroup analyses within the LA cohort. METHODS The survey was sent to nearly 8,000 physicians of participating professional organizations. In addition to the 63 questions, we also collected data on the type of institution, country, specialty, sex, age, years of experience in oncology, and leadership position. RESULTS The 217 LA respondents placed the highest value on task management competencies (91.37% reported these as important or very important v 87.0% of NA/EU respondents; P < .0001), followed by self-management (87.45% of LA respondents v 87.55% of NA/EU respondents; P = not significant [NS]), social responsibility (86.83% of LA respondents v 87.48% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), innovation (86.69% of LA respondents v 85.31% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), and leading others (83.31% of LA respondents v 84.71% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS). Social responsibility, which was first in importance in the NA/EU survey, was only third in the LA survey. Subgroup analyses showed significant variations in the ratings of specific LCs within the LA population. CONCLUSION LCs valued by LA leaders somewhat differ from those valued by their NA and EU counterparts, implying that cultural aspects might influence the perception of desired LCs. We also detected variations in the responses within the LA population. Our data indicate that current physician leadership training programs should be tailored to suit specific needs and cultural aspects of each region. Further validity studies of this instrument with other samples and cultures are warranted.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Global Oncology (JGO) is an online only, open access journal focused on cancer care, research and care delivery issues unique to countries and settings with limited healthcare resources. JGO aims to provide a home for high-quality literature that fulfills a growing need for content describing the array of challenges health care professionals in resource-constrained settings face. Article types include original reports, review articles, commentaries, correspondence/replies, special articles and editorials.
×
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