Dataset Information

Doctors' attitudes to, beliefs about, and experiences of the regulation of professional competence: a scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Historically, individual doctors were responsible for maintaining their own professional competence. More recently, changing patient expectations, debate about the appropriateness of professional self-regulation, and high-profile cases of malpractice have led to a move towards formal regulation of professional competence (RPC). Such programmes require doctors to demonstrate that they are fit to practice, through a variety of means. Participation in RPC is now part of many doctors' professional lives, yet it remains a highly contested area. Cost, limited evidence of impact, and lack of relevance to practice are amongst the criticisms cited. Doctors' attitudes towards RPC, their beliefs about its objectives and effectiveness, and their experiences of trying to meet its requirements can impact engagement with the process. We aim to conduct a scoping review to map the empirical literature in this area, to summarise the key findings, and to identify gaps for future research.

Methods

We will conduct our review following the six phases outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. We will search seven electronic databases: Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Social Sciences Full Text, and SocINDEX for relevant publications, and the websites of medical regulatory and educational organisations for documents. We will undertake backward and forward citation tracking of selected studies and will consult with international experts regarding key publications. Two researchers will independently screen papers for inclusion and extract data using a piloted data extraction tool. Data will be collated to provide a descriptive summary of the literature. A thematic analysis of the key findings will be presented as a narrative summary of the literature.

Discussion

We believe that this review will be of value to those tasked with the design and implementation of RPC programmes, helping them to maximise doctors' commitment and engagement, and to researchers, pointing to areas that would benefit from further enquiry. This research is timely; internationally existing programmes are evolving, new programmes are being initiated, and many jurisdictions do not yet have programmes in place. There is an opportunity for learning across different programmes and from the experiences of established programmes. Our review will support that learning.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO does not register scoping reviews.

SUBMITTER: Wiese A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6706919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesProgrammes to ensure doctors' maintenance of professional competence (MPC) have been established in many countries. Since 2011, doctors in Ireland have been legally required to participate in MPC. A significant minority has been slow to engage with MPC, mirroring the contested nature of such programmes internationally. This study aimed to describe doctors' attitudes and experiences of MPC in Ireland with a view to enhancing engagement.ParticipantsAll registered medical practitioners in Ireland required to undertake MPC in 2018 were surveyed using a 33-item cross-sectional mixed-methods survey designed to elicit attitudes, experiences and suggestions for improvement.ResultsThere were 5368 responses (response rate 42%). Attitudes to MPC were generally positive, but the time, effort and expense involved outweighed the benefit for half of doctors. Thirty-eight per cent agreed that MPC is a tick-box exercise. Heavy workload, travel, requirement to record continuing professional development activities and demands placed on personal time were difficulties cited. Additional support, as well as higher quality, more varied educational activities, were among suggested improvements. Thirteen per cent lacked confidence that they could meet requirements, citing employment status as the primary issue. MPC was particularly challenging for those working less than full-time, in locum or non-clinical roles, and taking maternity or sick leave. Seventy-seven per cent stated a definite intention to comply with MPC requirements. Being male, or having a basic medical qualification from outside Ireland, was associated with less firm intention to comply.ConclusionsDoctors need to be convinced of the benefits of MPC to them and their patients. A combination of clear communication and improved relevance to practice would help. Addition of a facilitated element, for example, appraisal, and varied ways to meet requirements, would support participation. MPC should be adequately resourced, including provision of high-quality free educational activities. Systems should be established to continually evaluate doctors' perspectives.

Project description:IntroductionAthletes are not immune to mental health issues but are less likely to seek help than non-athletes and experience barriers including lack of access to services, lack of knowledge as to how to access services and negative past experiences for help-seeking. Formal (eg, university counsellors, general practitioners and psychologists) and semi-formal (eg, academic tutor, sports coach and physiotherapist) sources of support provided in healthcare, the sport context and higher education are key places for athletes to seek help for mental health, and there is a need to synthesise the evidence on athletes' access, attitudes to and experiences of these services, to understand how to improve these services specific to athletes' mental health needs. This protocol outlines a scoping review that will be used to map the evidence, identify gaps in the literature and summarise findings on athletes' access, attitudes to and experiences of help-seeking for their mental health.Methods and analysisThe methodological frameworks of Arksey and O'Malley (2005), Levac et al (2010) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020 and 2021) were used to inform this scoping review protocol alongside the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist and published scoping review protocols within sport and health. The six stages of Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework have been used for this scoping review. The searches were conducted between 30 March 2022 and 3 April 2022 in the following databases: APA PsycINFO (via OVID), Embase (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Ovid), APA PsycArticles Full Text (via OVID), Web of Science Core Collection, SPORTDiscus (via EBSCO), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Scopus, ProQuest (Education Database), ProQuest (Education Collection), ProQuest (Health & Medical Collection), ProQuest (Nursing & Allied Health database), ProQuest (Psychology Database), ProQuest (Public Health Database) and ProQuest (Sports Medicine & Education). The main inclusion criteria of this review are: papers that focus on past help-seeking behaviour, attitudes towards help-seeking and future behavioural intentions, papers that refer to formal and semi-formal sources of support and peer-reviewed literature, primary research articles, systematic or scoping reviews and interventions. During title and abstract screening and full-text review, at least two reviewers will be involved. Data to be extracted from studies includes: details of the study population, whether the paper focuses on formal and/or semi-formal sources of support and whether the focus is on access, attitudes or experiences to help-seeking for mental health.Ethics and disseminationThe evidence will be mapped numerically and through content analysis to describe studies and highlight key concepts, themes and gaps in the literature. The published scoping review will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders and policymakers including those in healthcare, the sporting context and the higher education system. The resulting outputs will be in the form of both peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed publications (eg, multimedia in the form of a blog post and at conferences). The dissemination plan will be informed by patient and public involvement. Ethics approval was not required for this study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A growing number of postdoctoral scholars are following diverse career paths that require broad skill sets to ensure success. Yet, most postdoctoral professional learning and development initiatives are intended for academic careers and seldom include professional skills needed to succeed in non-academic settings. Given that fewer than 20% of postdoctoral scholars will obtain tenure-track academic positions, there is a great need for postdoctoral scholars to prepare for a range of future careers. Creating professional learning and development strategies to address these concerns requires an understanding of current approaches, yet there is a distinct lack of literature exploring and synthesizing sources of evidence on the professional learning and development of postdoctoral scholars. The purpose of this scoping review is to examine, synthesize, and map the sources of evidence on professional learning and development pertaining to postdoctoral scholars. METHODS:We will perform a scoping review to identify sources of evidence around professional learning and development of postdoctoral scholars. Our search strategy, limited to English language, will include searching relevant disciplinary and interdisciplinary databases with no limitation on date of publication. We will conduct forward and backward citation chasing of included articles. Gray literature will be searched in electronic databases and websites of national postdoctoral associations. Search strategies will be developed using controlled vocabulary and keyword terms related to postdoctoral scholars and professional development. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, and two reviewers will independently screen full text to determine final inclusion. These data will be summarized quantitatively (using a simple numerical count) and qualitatively using thematic analysis methods. Through this process, we will summarize the current state of evidence around professional development and learning of postdoctoral scholars and identify current gaps in the literature, as well as the research areas requiring systematic reviews and/or primary research. DISCUSSION:Despite the growing numbers of postdoctoral scholars, there has been no synthesis of the sources of evidence of postdoctoral scholars' professional learning and development. In reviewing a wide range of evidence and integrating it into a manageable and meaningful whole, this scoping review will be a critical first step in understanding the professional learning and development of postdoctoral scholars. Our results will help inform future research and the development of a framework for postdoctoral scholar's professional learning and development.

Project description:BackgroundProfessional identity development is an area of contemporary interest within medical education. It can be defined as 'the foundational process one experiences during the transformation from lay person to physician'. In order for this transformation to occur, medical values and principles are internalised. A robust professional identity is key to confident practice as a medical professional. As such, research regarding what works to encourage identity development is popular. New models of educational delivery, such as the increasingly popular Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship model (LICs), present an interesting opportunity to investigate impact on identity. As no previous literature reviews focus on identity development within LICs, it is unclear what is already known about their impact. Therefore, a scoping review synthesising current knowledge and mapping areas for future research is necessary.MethodsArksey and O'Malley's scoping review steps will be used as a methodological framework. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, ERIC, PsychINFO, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Scopus, and Web of science will be searched (from inception onwards). We will include single studies of any design (e.g. quantitative and qualitative) and reviews examining professional identity within Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships involving health profession students. Two reviewers will complete all screening and data abstraction independently. Deductive coding will be presented as a quantitative textual meta-analysis. Inductive coding will be presented in narrative format.DiscussionThis scoping review will explore professional identity formation within LICs, evaluating any known impact of the educational model and mapping the ways in which identity within LICs has been researched. Mapping of current knowledge should highlight whether LICs as an educational model can influence professional identity development and outline gaps in what is known about their impact to date. Theory used in LIC-based identity research will also be mapped, in order to summarise the main theoretical orientations of research to date. It is anticipated that through such evidence synthesis, directions for future research will become clear.Systematic review registrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hk83p.

Project description:IntroductionNursing research competence of nursing personnel has received much attention in recent years, as nursing has developed as both an independent academic discipline and an evidence-based practiing profession. Instruments for appraising nursing research competence are important, as they can be used to assess nursing research competence of the target population, showing changes of this variable over time and measuring the effectiveness of interventions for improving nursing research competence. There is a need to map the current state of the science of the instruments for nursing research competence, and to identify well validated and reliable instruments. This paper describes a protocol for a scoping review to identify, evaluate, compare and summarise the instruments designed to measure nursing research competence.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and Levac et al's additional recommendations for applying this framework. The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The protocol is registered through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ksh43/). Eight English databases and two Chinese databases will be searched between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2020 to retrieve manuscripts which include instrument(s) of nursing research competence. The literature screening and data extraction will be conducted by two researchers, independently. A third researcher will be involved when consensus is needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies on measurement properties of the instruments, as well as the quality of all the instruments identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed. We will disseminate the findings through a conference focusing on nursing research competence and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed journal.