Assessing the hidden curriculum in medical education: a scoping review and residency program's reflection.

Canadian medical education journal Pub Date : 2024-11-13 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.36834/cmej.78841
George J Li, Marissa Sherwood, Andrea Bezjak, May Tsao
{"title":"Assessing the hidden curriculum in medical education: a scoping review and residency program's reflection.","authors":"George J Li, Marissa Sherwood, Andrea Bezjak, May Tsao","doi":"10.36834/cmej.78841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While the hidden curriculum (HC) is becoming recognized as an important component of medical education, ideal methods of assessing the HC are not well known. The aim of this study was to review the literature for methods of assessing the HC in the context of healthcare education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review on methods to measure or assess the HC in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and ProQuest ERIC databases were searched from inception until August 2023. Studies which focused on healthcare education, including medicine, as well as other professions such as nursing, social work, pharmacy were included. We then obtained stakeholder feedback utilizing the results of this review to inform the ongoing HC assessment process within our own medical education program.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 141 studies included for full text review, 41 were included for analysis and data extraction. Most studies were conducted in North America and qualitative in nature. Physician education was best represented with most studies set in undergraduate medical education (<i>n</i> = 21, 51%). Assessment techniques included interviews (<i>n</i> = 19, 46%), cross-sectional surveys (<i>n</i> = 14, 34%), written reflections (<i>n</i> = 7, 17%), and direct observation of the working environment (<i>n</i> = 2, 5%). While attempts to create standardized HC evaluation methods were identified, there were no examples of implementation into an educational program formally or longitudinally. No studies reported on actions taken based on evaluation results. Confidential stakeholder feedback was obtained from postgraduate medical learners in our program, and this feedback was then used to modify our longitudinal HC assessment process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While the HC has as increasing presence in the medical education community, the ideal way to practically assess it within a healthcare education context remains unclear. We described the HC assessment process utilized at our program, which may be informative for other institutions attempting to implement a similar technique. Future attempts and studies would benefit from reporting longitudinal data and impacts of assessment results.</p>","PeriodicalId":72503,"journal":{"name":"Canadian medical education journal","volume":"15 5","pages":"113-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11586034/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian medical education journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.78841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While the hidden curriculum (HC) is becoming recognized as an important component of medical education, ideal methods of assessing the HC are not well known. The aim of this study was to review the literature for methods of assessing the HC in the context of healthcare education.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review on methods to measure or assess the HC in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and ProQuest ERIC databases were searched from inception until August 2023. Studies which focused on healthcare education, including medicine, as well as other professions such as nursing, social work, pharmacy were included. We then obtained stakeholder feedback utilizing the results of this review to inform the ongoing HC assessment process within our own medical education program.

Results: Of 141 studies included for full text review, 41 were included for analysis and data extraction. Most studies were conducted in North America and qualitative in nature. Physician education was best represented with most studies set in undergraduate medical education (n = 21, 51%). Assessment techniques included interviews (n = 19, 46%), cross-sectional surveys (n = 14, 34%), written reflections (n = 7, 17%), and direct observation of the working environment (n = 2, 5%). While attempts to create standardized HC evaluation methods were identified, there were no examples of implementation into an educational program formally or longitudinally. No studies reported on actions taken based on evaluation results. Confidential stakeholder feedback was obtained from postgraduate medical learners in our program, and this feedback was then used to modify our longitudinal HC assessment process.

Conclusions: While the HC has as increasing presence in the medical education community, the ideal way to practically assess it within a healthcare education context remains unclear. We described the HC assessment process utilized at our program, which may be informative for other institutions attempting to implement a similar technique. Future attempts and studies would benefit from reporting longitudinal data and impacts of assessment results.

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
评估医学教育中的隐性课程:范围审查和住院医师培训项目的反思。
背景:虽然隐性课程(HC)逐渐被认为是医学教育的重要组成部分,但评估隐性课程的理想方法却鲜为人知。本研究旨在对医疗保健教育背景下的隐性课程评估方法进行文献综述:我们根据《JBI 证据综合手册》对测量或评估人机交互的方法进行了范围界定。我们检索了从开始到 2023 年 8 月的 Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid EMBASE 和 ProQuest ERIC 数据库。其中包括以医疗保健教育为重点的研究,包括医学以及护理、社会工作、药学等其他专业。然后,我们利用此次审查的结果获得了利益相关者的反馈意见,为我们自己的医学教育项目中正在进行的人机交互评估过程提供了参考:在纳入全文审查的 141 项研究中,有 41 项被纳入分析和数据提取。大多数研究在北美进行,属于定性研究。医生教育最有代表性,大多数研究都以本科医学教育为背景(21 项,占 51%)。评估技术包括访谈(19 项,占 46%)、横断面调查(14 项,占 34%)、书面反思(7 项,占 17%)和对工作环境的直接观察(2 项,占 5%)。虽然有研究试图创建标准化的人机交互评估方法,但没有将其正式或纵向实施到教育计划中的实例。没有研究报告了根据评估结果采取的行动。我们从项目中的医学研究生那里获得了利益相关者的保密反馈,然后利用这些反馈修改了我们的纵向人机交互评估流程:尽管HC在医学教育界的存在感越来越强,但在医疗保健教育背景下对其进行实际评估的理想方法仍不明确。我们介绍了本项目所采用的HC评估流程,这可能对其他尝试实施类似技术的机构有所启发。未来的尝试和研究将从报告纵向数据和评估结果的影响中获益。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
[Using metaphor and art to talk about death with occupational therapy students]. A scoping review of Fit in medical education: a guaranteed success, or a threat to inclusivity? Advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion at academic medicine conferences: the need for safe spaces. Assessing the hidden curriculum in medical education: a scoping review and residency program's reflection. Climate change and health: a focal point for medical education.
×
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