Dataset Information

Analysis of Six Reviews on the Quality of Instruments for the Evaluation of Interprofessional Education in German-Speaking Countries.

ABSTRACT: Background: More and more institutions worldwide and in German-speaking countries are developing and establishing interprofessional seminars in undergraduate education of health professions. In order to evaluate the different didactic approaches and different outcomes regarding the anticipated interprofessional competencies, it is necessary to apply appropriate instruments. Cross-cultural instruments are particularly helpful for international comparability. The Interprofessional Education working group of the German Medical Association (GMA) aims at identifying existing instruments for the evaluation of interprofessional education in order to make recommendations for German-speaking countries. Methods: Systematic literature research was performed on the websites of international interprofessional organisations (CAIPE, EIPEN, AIPEN), as well as in the PubMed and Cinahl databases. Reviews focusing on quantitative instruments to evaluate competencies according to the modified Kirkpatrick competency levels were searched for. Psychometrics, language/country and setting, in which the instrument was applied, were recorded. Results: Six reviews out of 73 literature research hits were included. A large number of instruments were identified; however, their psychometrics and the applied setting were very heterogeneous. The instruments can mainly be assigned to Kirkpatrick levels 1, 2a & 2b. Most instruments have been developed in English but their psychometrics were not always reported rigorously. Only very few instruments are available in German. Conclusion: It is difficult to find appropriate instruments in German. Internationally, there are different approaches and objectives in the measurement and evaluation of interprofessional competencies. The question arises whether it makes sense to translate existing instruments or to go through the lengthy process of developing new ones. The evaluation of interprofessional seminars with quantitative instruments remains mainly on Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2. Levels 3 and 4 can probably only be assessed with qualitative or mixed methods. German language instruments are necessary.

SUBMITTER: Ehlers JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5569985 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of Six Reviews on the Quality of Instruments for the Evaluation of Interprofessional Education in German-Speaking Countries.

Ehlers Jan P JP Kaap-Fröhlich Sylvia S Mahler Cornelia C Scherer Theresa T Huber Marion M

GMS journal for medical education 20170815 3

<b>Background:</b> More and more institutions worldwide and in German-speaking countries are developing and establishing interprofessional seminars in undergraduate education of health professions. In order to evaluate the different didactic approaches and different outcomes regarding the anticipated interprofessional competencies, it is necessary to apply appropriate instruments. Cross-cultural instruments are particularly helpful for international comparability. The Interprofessional Education ...[more]

PMID: 28890927

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesWiki systems are becoming increasingly important in university teaching. Not much is known about the opinion of lecturers of veterinary medicine regarding the active participation of students in teaching, their opinion on wiki systems and their motivation to use them in courses and to improve the quality of information. The objective of the present study was to evaluate how lecturers of veterinary medicine estimate learning management systems and the production of text or material by students in courses, if they rate wiki systems as an appropriate tool for teaching, if they would use wiki systems for their courses and if they are willing to improve the quality of information.MethodsThe data collection was carried out as an online survey using a five-point Likert scale. Lecturers of veterinary medicine in Germany, Austria and Switzerland were contacted (n=approx. 1700) out of which 139 completed (8.2%) the survey.ResultsMost lecturers use LMS and consider it to be suitable for providing course material. Half of all respondents indicated that they believe that students achieve greater learning success by developing their own learning material. In courses 23.0% of their students develop own materials. The majority of lecturers considered wiki systems as an appropriate and complementary tool for teaching (53.6%). A collection of wiki articles is seen as useful (56.6%), particularly when experts review the contents. One third of the lecturers would use wiki systems for the creation of material by students, but 82.5% have not yet used them in teaching. One third is willing to participate in the review of articles with regard to their quality.ConclusionThe results show that many lecturers are willing to use veterinary wiki systems and that they regard them useful for teaching. According to the opinion of the majority of lecturers, the creation of material by students can lead to greater learning success and wiki systems are suitable for this purpose. We are about to develop strategies to support the implementation of wiki systems into veterinary education and a peer review system supported by lecturers. In a further project the actual learning success provided by the active use of wiki-systems by students will be evaluated.

Project description:Background: The purpose of this study was twofold: to assess the status of undergraduate medical ultrasound (US) education in the German-speaking area and to suggest a possible framework for a longitudinal undergraduate medical US curriculum based on the study results and a literature review. Methods: The survey included 44 medical faculties in the German-speaking area: 37 in Germany, four in Austria and three in German-speaking Switzerland. A standardized questionnaire focused on the following aspects of undergraduate medical US education: general information, organization, resources, assessment methods and evaluation. Results: Data from 28 medical faculties were analysed. 26 out of 28 medical faculties offered US courses, 21 offered compulsory as well as elective courses, four offered compulsory and one elective courses only. 27 medical faculties supported US skills implementation. Abdominal US (n=25) was most common in teaching basic US skills. A learning objective catalogue was provided at 15 medical faculties. At 22 medical faculties, medical specialists were involved in undergraduate medical US education. 24 out of 26 medical faculties thought that peer-teaching is important to convey US skills. Medical faculties used the following methods to assess US skills: objective structured clinical examination (OSCE, n=7), non-standardized practical exams (n=4), non-standardized combined oral-practical exams (n=2) or direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS, n=1). 25 out of 26 medical faculties evaluated their US courses and 19 made suggestions for improvements in undergraduate medical US education. Conclusion: Medical faculty members in the German-speaking area have recognized the relevance of undergraduate medical US education. So far, courses are offered heterogeneously with rather short hands-on scanning time and high student-instructor ratio. Based on the results of this study and a literature review we suggest a possible framework and milestones on the way to a longitudinal undergraduate medical US curriculum.

Project description:ObjectivesMedical education is gaining in significance internationally. A growing interest in the field has been observed in German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany, Switzerland) since the early 2000s. This interest is not, however, reflected in an increase in the number of publications on medical education of German-speaking authors in international professional journals. The following investigation examines the potential use of active participant numbers of German-speaking researchers at AMEE conferences as a means of measuring said development.MethodsThe AMEE conference proceedings from the categories poster presentations, short communications, research papers and plenary presentations from the years 2005-2013 were examined for evidence of Austrian, German and Swiss participation. The abstracts were subsequently analysed in terms of content and categorised according to study design, methodology, object of study, and research topic.ResultsOf the 9,446 analysed abstracts, 549 contributions show at least one first, last or co-author from Austria, Germany or Switzerland. The absolute number of contributions per conference varied between 44 in 2010 and 77 in 2013. The percentage fluctuated between 10% in 2005 and 4.1% in 2010. From the year 2010 onwards, however, participation increased continually. The research was predominantly descriptive (62.7%). Studies on fundamental questions of teaching and learning (clarification studies) were less frequent (4.0%). For the most part, quantitative methods (51.9%) were implemented in addressing subjects such as learning and teaching methods (33%), evaluation and assessment (22.4%) or curriculum development (14.4%). The study population was usually comprised of students (52.5%).ConclusionsThe number of contributions from Austria, Germany and Switzerland peak at the beginning and at the end of the evaluated period of time. A continual increase in active participation since 2005 was not observed. These observations do not reflect the actual increase of interest in medical education research in German-speaking countries.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health practitioners from different professions, and with differing competencies, need to collaborate to provide quality care. Competencies in interprofessional working need developing in undergraduate educational preparation. This paper reports the protocol for a systematic review of self-report instruments to assess interprofessional learning in undergraduate health professionals' education. METHODS:We will search PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and ERIC from January 2010 onwards. A combination of search terms for interprofessional learning, health professions, psychometric properties, assessment of learning and assessment tools will be used. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles, abstracts and full-texts. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Quantitative and mixed-methods studies evaluating interprofessional learning in undergraduate health professions education (e.g. medicine, nursing, occupational and physical therapy, pharmacy and psychology) will be included. Methodological quality of each reported instrument, underpinning theoretical frameworks, and the effects of reported interventions will be assessed. The overall outcome will be the effectiveness of instruments used to assess interprofessional competence. Primary outcomes will be the psychometric properties (e.g. reliability, discriminant and internal validity) of instruments used. Secondary outcomes will include time from intervention to assessment, how items relate to specific performance/competencies (or general abstract constructs) and how scores are used (e.g. to grade students, to improve courses or research purposes). Quantitative summaries in tabular format and a narrative synthesis will allow recommendations to be made on the use of self-report instruments in practice. DISCUSSION:Many studies use self-report questionnaires as tools for developing meaningful interprofessional education activities and assessing students' interprofessional competence. This systematic review will evaluate both the benefits and limitations of reported instruments and help educators and researchers (i) choose the most appropriate existing self-report instruments to assess interprofessional competence and (ii) inform the design and conduct of interprofessional competency assessment using self-report instruments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/vrfjn].

Project description:BackgroundThe main German-speaking countries (Germany, Austria, and Switzerland) have implemented digital contact tracing apps to assist the authorities with COVID-19 containment strategies. Low user rates for these apps can affect contact tracing and, thus, its usefulness in controlling the spread of the novel coronavirus.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the early perceptions of people living in the German-speaking countries and compare them with the frames portrayed in the newspapers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 159 participants of the SolPan project. Of those, 110 participants discussed contact tracing apps and were included in this study. We analyzed articles regarding contact tracing apps from 12 newspapers in the German-speaking countries.ResultsStudy participants perceived and newspaper coverage in all German-speaking countries framed contact tracing apps as governmental surveillance tools and embedded them in a broader context of technological surveillance. Participants identified trust in authorities, respect of individual privacy, voluntariness, and temporary use of contact tracing apps as prerequisites for democratic compatibility. Newspapers commonly referenced the use of such apps in Asian countries, emphasizing the differences in privacy regulation among these countries.ConclusionsThe uptake of digital contact tracing apps in German-speaking countries may be undermined due to privacy risks that are not compensated by potential benefits and are rooted in a deeper skepticism towards digital tools. When authorities plan to implement new digital tools and practices in the future, they should be very transparent and proactive in communicating their objectives and the role of the technology-and how it differs from other, possibly similar, tools. It is also important to publicly address ethical, legal, and social issues related to such technologies prior to their launch.

Project description:ImportanceStudies have shown that interprofessional education (IPE) improves learner proficiencies, but few have measured the association of IPE with patient outcomes, such as clinical quality.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of a multisite IPE initiative with quality of care.Design, setting, and participantsThis study used difference-in-differences analysis of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record data from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2015. Patients cared for by resident clinicians in 5 VA academic primary care clinics that participated in the Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education (CoEPCE), an initiative designed to promote IPE among physician, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, and psychologist trainees, were compared with patients cared for by resident clinicians in 5 regionally matched non-CoEPCE clinics using data for the 3 academic years (ie, July 1 to June 30) before and 4 academic years after the CoEPCE launch. Analysis was conducted from January 18, 2018, to January 17, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresAmong patients with diabetes, outcomes included annual hemoglobin A1c, poor hemoglobin A1c control (ie, <9% or unmeasured), and annual renal test; among patients 65 years and older, outcomes included prescription of high-risk medications; among patients with hypertension, outcomes included hypertension control (ie, blood pressure, <140/90 mm Hg); and among all patients, outcomes included timely mental health referrals, primary care mental health integrated visits, and hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions.ResultsA total of 44 527 patients contributed 107 686 patient-years; 49 279 (45.8%) were CoEPCE resident patient-years (mean [SD] patient age, 59.3 [15.2] years; 26 206 [53.2%] white; 8073 [16.4%] women; mean [SD] patient Elixhauser comorbidity score, 12.9 [15.1]), and 58 407 (54.2%) were non-CoEPCE resident patient-years (mean [SD] patient age, 61.8 [15.3] years; 43 912 [75.2%] white; 4915 [8.4%] women; mean [SD] patient Elixhauser comorbidity score, 13.8 [15.7]). Compared with resident clinicians who did not participate in the CoEPCE initiative, CoEPCE training was associated with improvements in the proportion of patients with diabetes with poor hemoglobin A1c control (-4.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.5 to -1.8 percentage points; P < .001), annual renal testing among patients with diabetes (3.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6 to 5.7 percentage points; P = .02), prescription of high-risk medications among patients 65 years and older (-2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.0 to -0.6 percentage points; P = .01), and timely mental health referrals (1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.6 percentage points; P = .002). Fewer patients cared for by CoEPCE resident clinicians had a hospitalization for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition compared with patients cared for by non-CoEPCE resident clinicians in non-CoEPCE clinics (-0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.0 percentage points; P = .01). Sensitivity analyses with alternative comparison groups yielded similar results.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, the CoEPCE initiative was associated with modest improvements in quality of care. Implementation of IPE was associated with improvements in patient outcomes and may potentiate delivery system reform efforts.

Dataset Information

Analysis of Six Reviews on the Quality of Instruments for the Evaluation of Interprofessional Education in German-Speaking Countries.

Publications

Analysis of Six Reviews on the Quality of Instruments for the Evaluation of Interprofessional Education in German-Speaking Countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets