Who's at the Table? A Scoping Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Medical Education Program Evaluation.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1177/01632787241286911
Juliette Macabrey, Laura-Lou Wuest, David Buetti
{"title":"Who's at the Table? A Scoping Review of Stakeholder Engagement in Medical Education Program Evaluation.","authors":"Juliette Macabrey, Laura-Lou Wuest, David Buetti","doi":"10.1177/01632787241286911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Program evaluation is essential for medical schools to demonstrate social accountability and identify areas for improvement in medical education (MEd). Although stakeholder engagement is crucial in program evaluation, no previous review has specifically examined the stakeholders involved in MEd program evaluation. This scoping review addresses this gap by identifying the stakeholders, their roles, and their levels of engagement in evaluating MEd programs, along with the facilitators and barriers to their participation. Through a systematic search across four databases, we identified 53 relevant studies out of 7206 screened. Our findings reveal seven primary stakeholder groups, with students and program directors being the most frequent participants. However, a significant gap exists in the representation of community members and patients, indicating a need for greater inclusion of these key stakeholders. Additionally, we found that stakeholders are primarily engaged as passive participants providing feedback rather than actively shaping the evaluation process. Facilitators and barriers to participation were identified from the participants' perspective, highlighting the need for further research to understand the viewpoints of active stakeholders, such as faculty and administrators. Future studies should also explore the impact of different evaluation approaches on stakeholder engagement to develop more inclusive and effective MEd program evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"1632787241286911"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241286911","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Program evaluation is essential for medical schools to demonstrate social accountability and identify areas for improvement in medical education (MEd). Although stakeholder engagement is crucial in program evaluation, no previous review has specifically examined the stakeholders involved in MEd program evaluation. This scoping review addresses this gap by identifying the stakeholders, their roles, and their levels of engagement in evaluating MEd programs, along with the facilitators and barriers to their participation. Through a systematic search across four databases, we identified 53 relevant studies out of 7206 screened. Our findings reveal seven primary stakeholder groups, with students and program directors being the most frequent participants. However, a significant gap exists in the representation of community members and patients, indicating a need for greater inclusion of these key stakeholders. Additionally, we found that stakeholders are primarily engaged as passive participants providing feedback rather than actively shaping the evaluation process. Facilitators and barriers to participation were identified from the participants' perspective, highlighting the need for further research to understand the viewpoints of active stakeholders, such as faculty and administrators. Future studies should also explore the impact of different evaluation approaches on stakeholder engagement to develop more inclusive and effective MEd program evaluations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁在桌边?利益相关者参与医学教育项目评估的范围审查》。
医学教育(MEd)项目评估对于医学院展示社会责任感和确定需要改进的领域至关重要。尽管利益相关者的参与在项目评估中至关重要,但之前的综述并未专门研究参与医学教育项目评估的利益相关者。本范围界定综述通过确定利益相关者、他们的角色、他们参与医学教育(MEd)项目评估的程度,以及他们参与的促进因素和障碍,来填补这一空白。通过对四个数据库的系统搜索,我们从筛选出的 7206 项研究中确定了 53 项相关研究。我们的研究结果显示了七个主要利益相关者群体,其中学生和项目主任是最常见的参与者。然而,在社区成员和患者的代表性方面存在很大差距,这表明需要更多地纳入这些主要利益相关者。此外,我们还发现,利益相关者主要是被动地提供反馈意见,而不是积极地影响评估过程。从参与者的角度确定了参与的促进因素和障碍,强调了进一步研究的必要性,以了解积极的利益相关者(如教师和管理人员)的观点。未来的研究还应探索不同的评估方法对利益相关者参与的影响,以开发更具包容性和更有效的教育硕士项目评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Analyzing the Effects of a Repeated Reading Intervention on Reading Fluency With Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Mothers With a Borderline Personality Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design Study. Single-Case Study of the Feasibility of Parent Training and Change in Parenting in Comparison to Baseline, in Adolescents With a Major Depressive Disorder. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Analysis of Count and Rate Data in Single-case Eperimental Designs: A Step-by-step Tutorial. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1