Dataset Information

Scoping review protocol: education initiatives for medical psychiatry collaborative care.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The collaborative care model is an approach providing care to those with mental health and addictions disorders in the primary care setting. There is a robust evidence base demonstrating its clinical and cost-effectiveness in comparison with usual care; however, the transitioning to this new paradigm of care has been difficult. While there are efforts to train and prepare healthcare professionals, not much is known about the current state of collaborative care training programmes. The objective of this scoping review is to understand how widespread these collaborative care education initiatives are, how they are implemented and their impacts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The scoping review methodology uses the established review methodology by Arksey and O'Malley. The search strategy was developed by a medical librarian and will be applied in eight different databases spanning multiple disciplines. A two-stage screening process consisting of a title and abstract scan and a full-text review will be used to determine the eligibility of articles. To be included, articles must report on an existing collaborative care education initiative for healthcare providers. All articles will be independently assessed for eligibility by pairs of reviewers, and all eligible articles will be abstracted and charted in duplicate using a standardised form. The extracted data will undergo a 'narrative review' or a descriptive analysis of the contextual or process-oriented data and simple quantitative analysis using descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Research ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. The results of this scoping review will inform the development of a collaborative care training initiative emerging from the Medical Psychiatry Alliance, a four-institution philanthropic partnership in Ontario, Canada. The results will also be presented at relevant national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

SUBMITTER: Shen N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5588937 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scoping review protocol: education initiatives for medical psychiatry collaborative care.

Shen Nelson N Sockalingam Sanjeev S Abi Jaoude Alexxa A Bailey Sharon M SM Bernier Thérèse T Freeland Alison A Hawa Aceel A Hollenberg Elisa E Woldemichael Bethel B Wiljer David D

BMJ open 20170903 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>The collaborative care model is an approach providing care to those with mental health and addictions disorders in the primary care setting. There is a robust evidence base demonstrating its clinical and cost-effectiveness in comparison with usual care; however, the transitioning to this new paradigm of care has been difficult. While there are efforts to train and prepare healthcare professionals, not much is known about the current state of collaborative care training progr ...[more]

PMID: 28871017

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesOver the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities.MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review.ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal.ConclusionsScoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Collaborative writing applications (eg, wikis and Google Documents) hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and health care. The rapid rise in their use has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use. OBJECTIVE:Through the Levac six-stage methodology, a scoping review was undertaken to explore the depth and breadth of evidence about the effective, safe, and ethical use of wikis and collaborative writing applications (CWAs) in health care. METHODS:Multiple strategies were used to locate studies. Seven scientific databases and 6 grey literature sources were queried for articles on wikis and CWAs published between 2001 and September 16, 2011. In total, 4436 citations and 1921 grey literature items were screened. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies, and extracted data using a standardized form. We included any paper presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning health care and CWAs. We defined a CWA as any technology that enables the joint and simultaneous editing of a webpage or an online document by many end users. We performed qualitative content analysis to identify the factors that affect the use of CWAs using the Gagnon framework and their effects on health care using the Donabedian framework. RESULTS:Of the 111 studies included, 4 were experimental, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 52 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use, and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. We classified them by theme: patterns of use of CWAs (n=26), quality of information in existing CWAs (n=25), and CWAs as KT tools (n=73). A high prevalence of CWA use (ie, more than 50%) is reported in 58% (7/12) of surveys conducted with health care professionals and students. However, we found only one longitudinal study showing that CWA use is increasing in health care. Moreover, contribution rates remain low and the quality of information contained in different CWAs needs improvement. We identified 48 barriers and 91 facilitators in 4 major themes (factors related to the CWA, users' knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 57 positive and 23 negative effects that we classified into processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Although we found some experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effectiveness and safety of CWAs as educational and KT interventions, the vast majority of included studies were observational case studies about CWAs being used by health professionals and patients. More primary research is needed to find ways to address the different barriers to their use and to make these applications more useful for different stakeholders.

Project description:BACKGROUND:According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residents "should participate in scholarly activity." The development of a sustainable, successful resident scholarship program is a difficult task faced by graduate medical education leadership. METHODS:A medical librarian conducted a systematic literature search for English language articles published on scholarly activities initiatives in Graduate Medical Education (GME) between January 2003 and March 31 2017. Inclusion criteria included implementing a graduate medical education research curriculum or initiative designed to enhance intern, resident, or fellow scholarly activities using a control or comparison group. We defined major outcomes as increases in publications or presentations. Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare the rate of publications before and after implementation of curriculum or initiative. RESULTS:We identified 32 relevant articles. Twenty-nine (91%) reported on resident publications, with 35% (10/29) reporting statistically significant increases. Fifteen articles (47%) reported on regional, national, or international presentations, with only 13% (2/15) reporting a statistically significant increase in productivity. Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis; for these studies, the post-initiative publication rate was estimated to be 2.6 times the pre-intervention rate (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.3; p?<?0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review identified 32 articles describing curricula and initiatives used by GME programs to increase scholarly activity. The three most frequently reported initiatives were mentors (88%), curriculum (59%), and protected time (59%). Although no specific strategy was identified as paramount to improved productivity, meta-analysis revealed that the publication rate was significantly higher following the implementation of an initiative. Thus, we conclude that a culture of emphasis on resident scholarship is the most important step. We call for well-designed research studies with control or comparison groups and a power analysis focused on identifying best practices for future scholarly activities curricula and initiatives.

Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-Care-Ultrasound (POCUS) curricula have rapidly expanded in undergraduate medical education (UME). However, the assessments used in UME remain variable without national standards. This scoping review characterizes and categorizes current assessment methods using Miller's pyramid for skills, performance, and competence of POCUS in UME. A structured protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A literature search of MEDLINE was performed from January 1, 2010, to June 15, 2021. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts for articles that met inclusion criteria. The authors included all POCUS UME publications in which POCUS-related knowledge, skills, or competence were taught and objectively assessed. Articles were excluded if there were no assessment methods used, if they exclusively used self-assessment of learned skills, were duplicate articles, or were summaries of other literature. Full text analysis and data extraction of included articles were performed by two independent reviewers. A consensus-based approach was used to categorize data and a thematic analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 643 articles were retrieved and 157 articles met inclusion criteria for full review. Most articles (n = 132; 84%) used technical skill assessments including objective structured clinical examinations (n = 27; 17%), and/or other technical skill-based formats including image acquisition (n = 107; 68%). Retention was assessed in n = 98 (62%) studies. One or more levels of Miller's pyramid were included in 72 (46%) articles. A total of four articles (2.5%) assessed for students' integration of the skill into medical decision making and daily practice.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate a lack of clinical assessment in UME POCUS that focus on integration of skills in daily clinical practice of medical students corresponding to the highest level of Miller's Pyramid. There exists opportunities to develop and integrate assessment that evaluate higher level competencies of POCUS skills of medical students. A mixture of assessment methods that correspond to multiple levels of Miller's pyramid should be used to best assess POCUS competence in UME.

Dataset Information

Scoping review protocol: education initiatives for medical psychiatry collaborative care.

Publications

Scoping review protocol: education initiatives for medical psychiatry collaborative care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets