Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Pain Management Education in Graduate Medical Education.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the importance of pain management across specialties and the effect of poor management on patients, many physicians are uncomfortable managing pain. This may be related, in part, to deficits in graduate medical education (GME).

Objective

We sought to evaluate the methodological rigor of and summarize findings from literature on GME interventions targeting acute and chronic non-cancer pain management.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) to identify studies published before March 2019 that had a focus on non-cancer pain management, majority of GME learners, defined educational intervention, and reported outcome. Quality of design was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E). One author summarized educational foci and methods.

Results

The original search yielded 6149 studies; 26 met inclusion criteria. Mean MERSQI score was 11.6 (SD 2.29) of a maximum 18; mean NOS-E score was 2.60 (SD 1.22) out of 6. Most studies employed a single group, pretest-posttest design (n=16, 64%). Outcomes varied: 6 (24%) evaluated reactions (Kirkpatrick level 1), 12 (48%) evaluated learner knowledge (level 2), 5 (20%) evaluated behavior (level 3), and 2 (8%) evaluated patient outcomes (level 4). Interventions commonly focused on chronic pain (n=18, 69%) and employed traditional lectures (n=16, 62%) and case-based learning (n=14, 54%).

Conclusions

Pain management education research in GME largely evaluated chronic pain management interventions by assessing learner reactions or knowledge at single sites.

SUBMITTER: Malik Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9017274 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review of Pain Management Education in Graduate Medical Education.

Malik Zayir Z Ahn James J Thompson Kathryn K Palma Alejandro A

Journal of graduate medical education 20220414 2

<h4>Background</h4>Despite the importance of pain management across specialties and the effect of poor management on patients, many physicians are uncomfortable managing pain. This may be related, in part, to deficits in graduate medical education (GME).<h4>Objective</h4>We sought to evaluate the methodological rigor of and summarize findings from literature on GME interventions targeting acute and chronic non-cancer pain management.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review by searching P ...[more]

PMID: 35463177

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProfessionalism standards encourage physicians to participate in public advocacy on behalf of societal health and well-being. While the number of publications of advocacy curricula for GME-level trainees has increased, there has been no formal effort to catalog them.ObjectiveTo systematically review the existing literature on curricula for teaching advocacy to GME-level trainees and synthesize the results to provide a resource for programs interested in developing advocacy curricula.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify articles published in English that describe advocacy curricula for graduate medical education trainees in the USA and Canada current to September 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We abstracted information and themes on curriculum development, implementation, and sustainability. Learning objectives, educational content, teaching methods, and evaluations for each curriculum were also extracted.ResultsAfter reviewing 884 articles, we identified 38 articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Curricula were offered across a variety of specialties, with 84% offered in primary care specialties. There was considerable heterogeneity in the educational content of included advocacy curriculum, ranging from community partnership to legislative advocacy. Common facilitators of curriculum implementation included the American Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements, institutional support, and preexisting faculty experience. Common barriers were competing curricular demands, time constraints, and turnover in volunteer faculty and community partners. Formal evaluation revealed that advocacy curricula were acceptable to trainees and improved knowledge, attitudes, and reported self-efficacy around advocacy.DiscussionOur systematic review of the medical education literature identified several advocacy curricula for graduate medical education trainees. These curricula provide templates for integrating advocacy education into GME-level training programs across specialties, but more work needs to be done to define standards and expectations around GME training for this professional activity.

Project description:BackgroundSubstance use increasingly contributes to early morbidity and mortality, which necessitates greater preparation of the healthcare workforce to mitigate its harm. The purpose of this systematic scoping review is to: 1) review published curricula on harm reduction for substance use implemented by undergraduate (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) in the United States and Canada, 2) develop a framework to describe a comprehensive approach to harm reduction medical education, and 3) propose additional content topics for future consideration.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, ERIC: Education Resources Information Center (Ovid), and MedEdPORTAL were searched. Studies included any English language curricula about harm reduction within UME or GME in the United States or Canada from 1993 until Nov 22, 2021. Two authors independently reviewed and screened records for data extraction. Data were analyzed on trainee population, curricula objectives, format, content, and evaluation.ResultsTwenty-three articles describing 19 distinct educational programs across the United States were included in the final sample, most of which created their own curricula (n = 17). Data on educational content were categorized by content and approach. Most programs (85%) focused on introductory substance use knowledge and skills without an understanding of harm reduction principles. Based on our synthesis of the educational content in these curricula, we iteratively developed a Harm Reduction Educational Spectrum (HRES) framework to describe curricula and identified 17 discrete content topics grouped into 6 themes based on their reliance on harm reduction principles.ConclusionsHarm reduction is under-represented in published medical curricula. Because the drug supply market changes rapidly, the content of medical curricula may be quickly outmoded thus curricula that include foundational knowledge of harm reduction principles may be more enduring. Students should be grounded in harm reduction principles to develop the advanced skills necessary to reduce the physical harm associated with drugs while still simultaneously recognizing the possibility of patients' ongoing substance use. We present the Harm Reduction Educational Spectrum as a new framework to guide future healthcare workforce development and to ultimately provide the highest-quality care for patients who use drugs.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residents "should participate in scholarly activity." The development of a sustainable, successful resident scholarship program is a difficult task faced by graduate medical education leadership.MethodsA medical librarian conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles published on scholarly activities initiatives in Graduate Medical Education (GME) between January 2003 and March 31 2017. Inclusion criteria included implementing a graduate medical education research curriculum or initiative designed to enhance intern, resident, or fellow scholarly activities using a control or comparison group. We defined major outcomes as increases in publications or presentations. Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of publications before and after implementation of curriculum or initiative.ResultsWe identified 32 relevant articles. Twenty-nine (91%) reported on resident publications, with 35% (10/29) reporting statistically significant increases. Fifteen articles (47%) reported on regional, national, or international presentations, with only 13% (2/15) reporting a statistically significant increase in productivity. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; for these studies, the post-initiative publication rate was estimated to be 2.6 times the pre-intervention rate (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3; p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur systematic review identified 32 articles describing curricula and initiatives used by GME programs to increase scholarly activity. The three most frequently reported initiatives were mentors (88%), curriculum (59%), and protected time (59%). Although no specific strategy was identified as paramount to improved productivity, meta-analysis revealed that the publication rate was significantly higher following the implementation of an initiative. Thus, we conclude that a culture of emphasis on resident scholarship is the most important step. We call for well-designed research studies with control or comparison groups and a power analysis focused on identifying best practices for future scholarly activities curricula and initiatives.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Pain Management Education in Graduate Medical Education.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Systematic Review of Pain Management Education in Graduate Medical Education.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets