Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots.

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Teaching and Learning in Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-27 DOI:10.1080/10401334.2023.2274991
Sean Tackett, Yvonne Steinert, Susan Mirabal, Darcy A Reed, Scott M Wright
{"title":"Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots.","authors":"Sean Tackett, Yvonne Steinert, Susan Mirabal, Darcy A Reed, Scott M Wright","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2023.2274991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Phenomenon: </strong>All individuals and groups have blind spots that can lead to mistakes, perpetuate biases, and limit innovations. The goal of this study was to better understand how blind spots manifest in medical education by seeking them out in the U.S.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>We conducted group concept mapping (GCM), a research method that involves brainstorming ideas, sorting them according to conceptual similarity, generating a point map that represents consensus among sorters, and interpreting the cluster maps to arrive at a final concept map. Participants in this study were stakeholders from the U.S. medical education system (i.e., learners, educators, administrators, regulators, researchers, and commercial resource producers) and those from the broader U.S. health system (i.e., patients, nurses, public health professionals, and health system administrators). All participants brainstormed ideas to the focus prompt: \"To educate physicians who can meet the health needs of patients in the U.S. health system, medical education should become less blind to (or pay more attention to) …\" Responses to this prompt were reviewed and synthesized by our study team to prepare them for sorting, which was done by a subset of participants from the medical education system. GCM software combined sorting solutions using a multidimensional scaling analysis to produce a point map and performed cluster analyses to generate cluster solution options. Our study team reviewed and interpreted all cluster solutions from five to 25 clusters to decide upon the final concept map.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Twenty-seven stakeholders shared 298 blind spots during brainstorming. To decrease redundancy, we reduced these to 208 in preparation for sorting. Ten stakeholders independently sorted the blind spots, and the final concept map included 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots that related to (1) admissions processes; (2) teaching practices; (3) assessment and curricular designs; (4) inequities in education and health; (5) professional growth and identity formation; (6) patient perspectives; (7) teamwork and leadership; (8) health systems care models and financial practices; and (9) government and business policies.</p><p><strong>Insights: </strong>Soliciting perspectives from diverse stakeholders to identify blind spots in medical education uncovered a wide array of issues that deserve more attention. The concept map may also be used to help prioritize resources and direct interventions that can stimulate change and bring medical education into better alignment with the health needs of patients and communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"75-85"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2023.2274991","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Phenomenon: All individuals and groups have blind spots that can lead to mistakes, perpetuate biases, and limit innovations. The goal of this study was to better understand how blind spots manifest in medical education by seeking them out in the U.S.

Approach: We conducted group concept mapping (GCM), a research method that involves brainstorming ideas, sorting them according to conceptual similarity, generating a point map that represents consensus among sorters, and interpreting the cluster maps to arrive at a final concept map. Participants in this study were stakeholders from the U.S. medical education system (i.e., learners, educators, administrators, regulators, researchers, and commercial resource producers) and those from the broader U.S. health system (i.e., patients, nurses, public health professionals, and health system administrators). All participants brainstormed ideas to the focus prompt: "To educate physicians who can meet the health needs of patients in the U.S. health system, medical education should become less blind to (or pay more attention to) …" Responses to this prompt were reviewed and synthesized by our study team to prepare them for sorting, which was done by a subset of participants from the medical education system. GCM software combined sorting solutions using a multidimensional scaling analysis to produce a point map and performed cluster analyses to generate cluster solution options. Our study team reviewed and interpreted all cluster solutions from five to 25 clusters to decide upon the final concept map.

Findings: Twenty-seven stakeholders shared 298 blind spots during brainstorming. To decrease redundancy, we reduced these to 208 in preparation for sorting. Ten stakeholders independently sorted the blind spots, and the final concept map included 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots that related to (1) admissions processes; (2) teaching practices; (3) assessment and curricular designs; (4) inequities in education and health; (5) professional growth and identity formation; (6) patient perspectives; (7) teamwork and leadership; (8) health systems care models and financial practices; and (9) government and business policies.

Insights: Soliciting perspectives from diverse stakeholders to identify blind spots in medical education uncovered a wide array of issues that deserve more attention. The concept map may also be used to help prioritize resources and direct interventions that can stimulate change and bring medical education into better alignment with the health needs of patients and communities.

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
运用群体概念图探究医学教育的盲点。
现象:所有个人和群体都有盲点,这些盲点会导致错误,使偏见长期存在,并限制创新。本研究的目的是通过在美国寻找盲点,更好地了解盲点是如何在医学教育中表现出来的。方法:我们进行了群体概念映射(GCM),这是一种涉及头脑风暴的研究方法,根据概念相似性对其进行排序,生成代表排序者共识的点图,以及解释聚类图以得到最终的概念图。本研究的参与者是来自美国医学教育系统的利益相关者(即学习者、教育者、行政人员、监管机构、研究人员和商业资源生产者)和来自更广泛的美国卫生系统的利益攸关者(即患者、护士、公共卫生专业人员和卫生系统行政人员)。所有参与者都对焦点提示进行了头脑风暴式的思考:“为了教育能够满足美国卫生系统患者健康需求的医生,医学教育应该不那么盲目(或更加关注)……”我们的研究团队对这一提示的回应进行了审查和综合,为分类做好准备,这是由来自医学教育系统的一部分参与者完成的。GCM软件使用多维比例分析组合排序解决方案以生成点图,并执行聚类分析以生成聚类解决方案选项。我们的研究团队审查并解释了5到25个集群的所有集群解决方案,以决定最终的概念图。调查结果:27名利益相关者在头脑风暴中共有298个盲点。为了减少冗余,我们将其减少到208个,为排序做准备。10个利益相关者对盲点进行了独立排序,最终的概念图包括与(1)招生过程相关的盲点的9个域和72个子域;(2) 教学实践;(3) 评估和课程设计;(4) 教育和卫生方面的不平等;(5) 职业成长和身份形成;(6) 患者视角;(7) 团队合作和领导力;(8) 卫生系统护理模式和财务做法;以及(9)政府和商业政策。见解:从不同的利益相关者那里寻求观点,以确定医学教育中的盲点,发现了一系列值得更多关注的问题。概念图还可用于帮助优先考虑资源和直接干预措施,这些资源和干预措施可以刺激变革,并使医学教育更好地与患者和社区的健康需求相一致。
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
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
期刊最新文献
Academic Leadership Academy Summer Program: Clerkship Transition Preparation for Underrepresented in Medicine Medical Students. Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots. Asian Conscientization: Reflections on the Experiences of Asian Faculty in Academic Medicine. Competency-Based Cultural Safety Training in Medical Education at La Sabana University, Colombia: A Roadmap of Curricular Modernization. Faculty Decision Making in Ad Hoc Entrustment of Pediatric Critical Care Fellows: A National Case-Based Survey.
×
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