What is interesting in the issue 2016 of Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hur Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5286216 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
What is interesting in the issue 2016 of <i>Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions?</i>
Journal of educational evaluation for health professions 20161228
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5801431 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5801429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe piloted an educational intervention that aimed to enhance awareness about nutrition-age-related macular degeneration (AMD) links among practising and student dietitians then expanded the scope of this intervention to include general eye health, which was delivered to pharmacy students.MethodsA pilot intervention was conducted in 2019 at the Dietitians Australia Conference (Gold Coast, Australia) where practising and student dietitians underwent a 2-hour small group educational workshop on nutrition and AMD links. Pre-post questionnaires were administered to participants, with voluntary completion of both questionnaires an indicator of consent to participate in the intervention. The primary intervention outcome was a change in AMD-related nutrition knowledge pre-post intervention. A larger intervention was then conducted at the University of Sydney (Sydney, Australia) where pharmacy students underwent a 4-hour educational module to improve general eye health knowledge, as well as student perceptions and attitudes towards a pharmacists' role in low vision care. Similarly, pre-post questionnaires were administered, with voluntary completion of both questionnaires an indicator of consent to participate in the intervention. The primary intervention outcomes were changes in total knowledge, total perception and total attitude scores pre-post intervention.Results(1) Among 10 accredited and 5 student dietitians, there was significant overall knowledge improvement (mean pre-post score: 7.07 ± 1.94 vs. 10.8 ± 1.01, p = 0.001) specifically around appropriate dietary advice, food sources of key AMD-related nutrients, and awareness of supplements. (2) Among 179 second-year pharmacy students enrolled in the 'Pharmacy Practice' Unit of Study (Bachelor of Pharmacy, University of Sydney), total eye health knowledge (6.25 ± 1.93 vs. 6.64 ± 2.0; p = 0.011) significantly improved, along with total perception scores (41.54 ± 5.26 vs. 42.45 ± 4.95; p = 0.004). Total attitude scores were not significantly different.ConclusionsThe pilot intervention improved relevant nutrition-AMD knowledge among practising/student dietitians. The modified intervention for pharmacy students also significantly improved general eye health knowledge as well as students' perception of a pharmacists' role in low vision care.
| S-EPMC8424804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to suggest a more suitable study design and the corresponding reporting guidelines in the papers published in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professionals from January 2021 to September 2022.MethodsAmong 59 papers published in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professionals from January 2021 to September 2022, research articles, review articles, and brief reports were selected. The followings were analyzed: first, the percentage of articles describing the study design in the title, abstracts, or methods; second, the portion of articles describing reporting guidelines; third, the
| S-EPMC9889887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionScholarship is a key activity in health professions education (HPE). When disseminating scholarly work, how one selects the journal to which they submit is often argued to be a key determinant of subsequent success. To draw more evidence-based recommendations in this regard, we surveyed successful scholars working in HPE regarding their perspectives and experiences with journal selection.MethodsWe conducted an international survey of HPE scholars, investigating their decisions regarding journal choice. Corresponding authors were identified from a sample of 4000 papers published in 2019 and 2020. They were invited via email with up to four reminders. We describe their experience and use principle component and regression analyses to identify factors associated with successful acceptance.ResultsIn total, 863 responses were received (24.7% response rate), 691 of which were included in our analyses. Two thirds of respondents had their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal with revisions required in 98% of cases. We identified six priority factors when choosing journals. In descending order of importance, they were: fit, impact, editorial reputation, speed of dissemination, breadth of dissemination, and guidance from others. Authors who prioritised fit higher and who selected a journal earlier were more likely to have their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal.DiscussionBased on our results we make three recommendations for authors when writing manuscripts: do not be disheartened by a revise decision, consider journal choice early in the research process, and use the fit between your manuscript and the journal as the main factor driving journal choice.
| S-EPMC9240136 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6973857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Uncertainty is a feature of healthcare practice. In recognition of this, multiple health profession governing bodies identify uncertainty tolerance as a healthcare graduate attribute and evaluate uncertainty tolerance within new graduate cohorts. While it is clear that uncertainty tolerance development for healthcare learners is valued, gaps remain for practically addressing this within healthcare curricula. Guiding frameworks for practical approaches supporting uncertainty tolerance development in healthcare learners remains sparse, particularly outside of medicine and in certain geographical locations. As uncertainty tolerance is increasingly recognised as being, at least in part, state-based (e.g. contextually changeable)- a broader understanding of teaching practices supporting uncertainty tolerance development in diverse health professions is warranted. This study explored educators' teaching practices for purposefully stimulating learners' uncertainty tolerance. Semi-structured interviews investigated how academics at a single institution, from diverse fields and health professions, stimulate uncertainty across multiple learning contexts. Framework analysis identified three themes for stimulating uncertainty: Purposeful questioning, Forecasting uncertainty, and Placing learners in unfamiliar environments, with characterisation of these themes (and related subthemes) also described. Many of the identified themes align with aspects of existing learning theories suggesting that curricular frameworks supporting learner uncertainty tolerance development may be informed by theories beyond the boundaries of health professions education research.
| S-EPMC11925988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe articulation of learning goals, processes and outcomes related to health humanities teaching currently lacks comparability of curricula and outcomes, and requires synthesis to provide a basis for developing a curriculum and evaluation framework for health humanities teaching and learning. This scoping review sought to answer how and why the health humanities are used in health professions education. It also sought to explore how health humanities curricula are evaluated and whether the programme evaluation aligns with the desired learning outcomes.MethodsA focused scoping review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies that included the influence of integrated health humanities curricula in pre-registration health professions education with programme evaluate of outcomes was completed. Studies of students not enrolled in a pre-registration course, with only ad-hoc health humanities learning experiences that were not assessed or evaluated were excluded. Four databases were searched (CINAHL), (ERIC), PubMed, and Medline.ResultsThe search over a 5 year period, identified 8621 publications. Title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening, resulted in 24 articles selected for inclusion. Learning outcomes, learning activities and evaluation data were extracted from each included publication.DiscussionReported health humanities curricula focused on developing students' capacity for perspective, reflexivity, self- reflection and person-centred approaches to communication. However, the learning outcomes were not consistently described, identifying a limited capacity to compare health humanities curricula across programmes. A set of clearly stated generic capabilities or outcomes from learning in health humanities would be a helpful next step for benchmarking, clarification and comparison of evaluation strategy.
| S-EPMC8579562 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3354471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has a variety of potential applications in health professions education and assessment; however, measurable educational impacts of AI-based educational strategies on learning outcomes have not been systematically evaluated.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using electronic databases (CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Proquest, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) to identify studies published until October 1st 2024, analyzing the impact of AI-based tools/interventions in health profession assessment and/or training on educational outcomes. The present analysis follows the PRISMA 2020 statement for systematic reviews and the structured approach to reporting in health care education for evidence synthesis.ResultsThe final analysis included twelve studies. All were single centers with sample sizes ranging from 4 to 180 participants. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, and seven had a quasi-experimental design. Two studies were observational. The studies had a heterogenous design. Confounding variables were not controlled. None of the studies provided learning objectives or descriptions of the competencies to be achieved. Three studies applied learning theories in the development of AI-powered educational strategies. One study reported the analysis of the authenticity of the learning environment. No study provided information on the impact of feedback activities on learning outcomes. All studies corresponded to Kirkpatrick's second level evaluating technical skills or quantifiable knowledge. No study evaluated more complex tasks, such as the behavior of learners in the workplace. There was insufficient information on training datasets and copyright issues.ConclusionsThe results of the analysis show that the current evidence regarding measurable educational outcomes of AI-powered interventions in health professions education is poor. Further studies with a rigorous methodological approach are needed. The present work also highlights that there is no straightforward guide for evaluating the quality of research in AI-based education and suggests a series of criteria that should be considered.Trial registrationMethods and inclusion criteria were defined in advance, specified in a protocol and registered in the OSF registries ( https://osf.io/v5cgp/ ).Clinical trial numbernot applicable.
| S-EPMC11773843 | biostudies-literature