评估临床前模拟病例中的通用性和公平性、多样性和包容性领域,以便有针对性地改进课程。

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Medical Education Online Pub Date : 2024-12-31 Epub Date: 2024-03-22 DOI:10.1080/10872981.2024.2331852
Thomas Soroski, Kuda Hove, Lisa Steblecki, Jaime C Yu
{"title":"评估临床前模拟病例中的通用性和公平性、多样性和包容性领域,以便有针对性地改进课程。","authors":"Thomas Soroski, Kuda Hove, Lisa Steblecki, Jaime C Yu","doi":"10.1080/10872981.2024.2331852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Simulated cases are widely used in medical education to develop clinical reasoning skills and discuss key topics around patient care. Such cases present an opportunity to demonstrate real world encounters with diverse patient and health provider identities, impacts of social and structural determinants of health, and demonstrate a generalist approach to problems. However, despite many calls-to-action for medical schools to better incorporate equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and generalism, it remains difficult to evaluate how well these goals are being met.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quality improvement project was completed at a single medical school to evaluate the domains of generalism and EDI within simulated cases used in the preclinical curriculum. Generalism was evaluated using the Toronto Generalism Assessment Tool (T-GAT). EDI was evaluated using a locally developed novel tool. Analysis included descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 49 simulated cases were reviewed. Twelve generalism and 5 EDI items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating better demonstration of generalism or EDI within a case. Average generalism score across all cases was 45.6/60. Average EDI score across all cases was 11.7/25. Only 21/49 cases included representation of one or more diverse identity categories. The most common diverse identity represented was non-white races/ethnicities, and the identity represented the least was diversity in language fluency. Generalism and EDI scores demonstrated a weak positive correlation (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Quantitative evaluation of simulated cases using specific generalism and EDI scoring tools was successful in generating insight into areas of improvement for teaching cases. This approach identified key content areas for case improvement and identities that are currently underrepresented in teaching cases. Similar approaches could be feasibly used by other medical schools to improve generalism and EDI in teaching cases or other curricular materials.</p>","PeriodicalId":47656,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10962297/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the domains of generalism and equity, diversity and inclusion in preclinical simulated cases for targeted curricular improvements.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Soroski, Kuda Hove, Lisa Steblecki, Jaime C Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10872981.2024.2331852\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Simulated cases are widely used in medical education to develop clinical reasoning skills and discuss key topics around patient care. Such cases present an opportunity to demonstrate real world encounters with diverse patient and health provider identities, impacts of social and structural determinants of health, and demonstrate a generalist approach to problems. However, despite many calls-to-action for medical schools to better incorporate equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and generalism, it remains difficult to evaluate how well these goals are being met.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quality improvement project was completed at a single medical school to evaluate the domains of generalism and EDI within simulated cases used in the preclinical curriculum. Generalism was evaluated using the Toronto Generalism Assessment Tool (T-GAT). EDI was evaluated using a locally developed novel tool. Analysis included descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 49 simulated cases were reviewed. Twelve generalism and 5 EDI items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating better demonstration of generalism or EDI within a case. Average generalism score across all cases was 45.6/60. Average EDI score across all cases was 11.7/25. Only 21/49 cases included representation of one or more diverse identity categories. The most common diverse identity represented was non-white races/ethnicities, and the identity represented the least was diversity in language fluency. Generalism and EDI scores demonstrated a weak positive correlation (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Quantitative evaluation of simulated cases using specific generalism and EDI scoring tools was successful in generating insight into areas of improvement for teaching cases. This approach identified key content areas for case improvement and identities that are currently underrepresented in teaching cases. Similar approaches could be feasibly used by other medical schools to improve generalism and EDI in teaching cases or other curricular materials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education Online\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10962297/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2331852\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education Online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2331852","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:模拟病例被广泛应用于医学教育中,以培养临床推理技能和讨论有关病人护理的关键话题。此类病例提供了一个机会,展示现实世界中不同患者和医疗服务提供者的身份、社会和结构性健康决定因素的影响,并展示解决问题的通才方法。然而,尽管很多人呼吁医学院采取行动,更好地融入公平、多样性和包容性(EDI)以及通才主义,但仍然很难评估这些目标的实现情况:方法:在一所医学院完成了一项质量改进项目,以评估临床前课程模拟病例中的通识性和 EDI 领域。采用多伦多通识评估工具(T-GAT)对通识进行评估。EDI使用当地开发的一种新型工具进行评估。分析包括描述性统计和皮尔逊相关系数:共审查了 49 个模拟病例。12个通性项目和5个EDI项目采用5点李克特量表进行评分,分数越高,表明病例中的通性或EDI表现越好。所有病例的通用性平均得分为 45.6/60。所有案例的平均 EDI 得分为 11.7/25。只有 21/49 个案例包含一个或多个不同身份类别的代表。最常见的多元化身份是非白人种族/族裔,最少的多元化身份是语言流利程度。通用性与 EDI 分数呈弱正相关(R2 = 0.25):使用特定的通用性和 EDI 评分工具对模拟案例进行定量评估,成功地深入了解了案例教学的改进领域。这种方法确定了案例改进的关键内容领域,以及目前在教学案例中代表性不足的身份。其他医学院校也可以采用类似的方法来改进教学病例或其他课程材料中的通识性和EDI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluating the domains of generalism and equity, diversity and inclusion in preclinical simulated cases for targeted curricular improvements.

Background: Simulated cases are widely used in medical education to develop clinical reasoning skills and discuss key topics around patient care. Such cases present an opportunity to demonstrate real world encounters with diverse patient and health provider identities, impacts of social and structural determinants of health, and demonstrate a generalist approach to problems. However, despite many calls-to-action for medical schools to better incorporate equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and generalism, it remains difficult to evaluate how well these goals are being met.

Methods: A quality improvement project was completed at a single medical school to evaluate the domains of generalism and EDI within simulated cases used in the preclinical curriculum. Generalism was evaluated using the Toronto Generalism Assessment Tool (T-GAT). EDI was evaluated using a locally developed novel tool. Analysis included descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficient.

Results: A total of 49 simulated cases were reviewed. Twelve generalism and 5 EDI items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating better demonstration of generalism or EDI within a case. Average generalism score across all cases was 45.6/60. Average EDI score across all cases was 11.7/25. Only 21/49 cases included representation of one or more diverse identity categories. The most common diverse identity represented was non-white races/ethnicities, and the identity represented the least was diversity in language fluency. Generalism and EDI scores demonstrated a weak positive correlation (R2 = 0.25).

Conclusions: Quantitative evaluation of simulated cases using specific generalism and EDI scoring tools was successful in generating insight into areas of improvement for teaching cases. This approach identified key content areas for case improvement and identities that are currently underrepresented in teaching cases. Similar approaches could be feasibly used by other medical schools to improve generalism and EDI in teaching cases or other curricular materials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Education Online
Medical Education Online EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education Online is an open access journal of health care education, publishing peer-reviewed research, perspectives, reviews, and early documentation of new ideas and trends. Medical Education Online aims to disseminate information on the education and training of physicians and other health care professionals. Manuscripts may address any aspect of health care education and training, including, but not limited to: -Basic science education -Clinical science education -Residency education -Learning theory -Problem-based learning (PBL) -Curriculum development -Research design and statistics -Measurement and evaluation -Faculty development -Informatics/web
期刊最新文献
Medical law; promotion of medicine curriculum: a letter to editor. Tips for developing a coaching program in medical education. High- and low-achieving international medical students' perceptions of the factors influencing their academic performance at Chinese universities. A Medical Education Research Library: key research topics and associated experts. Financial barriers and inequity in medical education in India: challenges to training a diverse and representative healthcare workforce.
×
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
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