Dataset Information

Development of a brief learning environment measure for use in healthcare professions education: the Healthcare Education Micro Learning Environment Measure (HEMLEM).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The learning environment impacts many aspects of healthcare education, including student outcomes. Rather than being a single and fixed phenomenon, it is made up of multiple micro learning environments. The standard clinical learning environment measurement tools do not consider such diversity and may fail to adequately capture micro learning environments. Moreover, the existing tools are often long and may take a prohibitive amount of time to complete properly. This may have a negative impact on their usefulness in educational improvement strategies. In addition, there is no universal tool available which could be utilised across several healthcare student groups and placement settings.

Aim

To create an evidence-based measurement tool for assessing clinical micro learning environments across several healthcare profession student groups.

Methods

The measurement tool was developed through a step-wise approach: 1) literature review with iterative analysis of existing tools; 2) generation of new items via thematic analysis of student experiences; 3) a Delphi process involving healthcare educators; 4) piloting of the prototype; and 5) item reduction.

Results

The literature review and experiential data from healthcare students resulted in 115 and 43 items respectively. These items were refined, leaving 75 items for the Delphi process, which produced a prototype with 57 items. This prototype was then completed by 257 students across the range of healthcare professions, with item reduction resulting in a 12-item tool.

Conclusion

This paper describes a mixed methods approach to developing a brief micro learning environment measurement tool. The generated tool can be used for measuring student perceptions of clinical environments across several healthcare professions. Further cross-cultural and cross-professional validation studies are needed to support widespread use, possibly through mobile application.

SUBMITTER: Isba R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7146917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelf-report resource-use measures (RUMs) are often used to collect healthcare use data from participants in healthcare studies. However, RUMs are typically adapted from existing measures on a study-by-study basis, resulting in a lack of standardisation which limits comparability across studies. Psychometric testing of RUMs is rarely conducted. This paper reports on cognitive interviews with patients to test the content validity and acceptability of a new RUM (ModRUM). ModRUM is a brief, generic RUM with a core module on healthcare use and questions/modules to increase depth and breadth.MethodsA purposeful sampling strategy with maximum variation was used to recruit patients from primary care to participate in "think-aloud" interviews with retrospective probing. Participants verbalised their thought processes as they completed ModRUM, which allowed errors (issues with completion) to be identified. The interviewer asked follow-up and probing questions to investigate errors, clarity and acceptability. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Research team members independently scored transcripts to identify errors in comprehension, recall, judgement and response. Members met to agree on final scores. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively using techniques of constant comparison, to identify common themes and ideas for improvement. Data collection and analysis were performed concurrently and in rounds.ResultsTwenty participants were interviewed between December 2019 and March 2020. Interviews were conducted in three rounds, with revisions made iteratively and in response to interview findings. Seven participants completed the core module and 13 completed the core module plus depth questions. Of 71 issues, 28 were in comprehension, 14 in retrieval, 10 in judgement, 18 in response and 1 uncategorised. Most issues (21 issues by 2 participants) were due to participants including family healthcare use. Other issues included using incorrect recall periods (5 issues) and overlooking questions leading to missing responses (9 issues). Common participant suggestions included highlighting important details and providing additional definition or examples for some terms. The length, content and layout were acceptable to most participants.ConclusionsA generic RUM is needed to increase study comparability. RUM development requires thorough testing to demonstrate and enhance validity. Cognitive interviewing has demonstrated the acceptability and content validity of ModRUM.

Project description:BackgroundLearning theory is an essential component for designing an effective educational curriculum. Reviews of existing literature consistently lack sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of digital interventions for health professions' education, which may reflect disconnections among learning theories, curriculum design, use of technology, and outcome evaluation.ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to identify, map, and evaluate the use of learning theories in designing and implementing intervention trials of health professions' digital education, as well as highlight areas for future research on technology-enhanced education via the establishment of a development framework for practice and research.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Center, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2007 and 2016.ResultsA total of 874 RCTs on digital health education were identified and categorized into online-offline, mobile digital education, and simulation-based modalities for pre and postregistration health professions' education. Of these, 242 studies were randomly selected for methodological review and thematic analysis. Data were extracted by one author using a standardized form, with a (48/242, 20%) random sample extracted by a second author, in duplicate. One-third (81/242, 33.4%) of the studies reported single or multiple learning theories in design, assessment, conceptualization, or interpretation of outcomes of the digital education interventions. Commonly reported learning theories were problem-based learning (16/81, 20%), social learning theory (11/81, 14%), and cognitive theory of multimedia learning (10/81, 12%). Most of these studies assessed knowledge (118/242, 48.8%), skills (62/242, 25.6%), and performance (59/242, 24.3%) as primary outcomes with nonvalidated assessment tools (151/242, 62.4%). Studies with reported learning theories (?21=8.2; P=.002) and validated instruments (?21=12.6; P=.006) have shown effective acquisition of learning outcomes.ConclusionsWe proposed a Theory-Technology Alignment Framework to safeguard the robustness and integrity of the design and implementation of future digital education programs for the training of health professionals.

Project description:Background: It is unavoidable for learners undergoing health professions training to encounter different complex clinical scenarios related to diagnoses, treatment and ethical dilemmas. The lack of standard answers to such clinical challenges can cause uncertainty in the process of teaching, learning and assessment as learners grapple with the need to critically appraise the specific context, past practices and extant literature to arrive at a thoughtful decision. In this aspect, debate can be a useful pedagogical tool to consider multiple, different perspectives regarding these issues. As the use of debate within the health professions education has not been reviewed, we conducted a systematic review of the current literature on the adoption of debate as a pedagogical tool to clarify the specific context of use as well as its effectiveness in the learning of skills and content within the health professions education. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on relevant published literature in English within journal databases until September 2018 that employed debate as a pedagogical tool within health professions education. Results: Out of 626 screened articles, 12 studies were finally included based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The 12 studies (9 undergraduate, 3 postgraduate) covered a diverse range of disciplines and debate in health professions education was adopted for acquisition of skills (such as critical thinking, communication skills, teamwork), or learning of specific topics (such as patient safety, ethical issues, teaching of new topics) as well as to examine evidence based practice. In the majority of studies (10 of 12 studies, 83.3%), debate has been deemed by the learners to be effective in facilitating the learning of new content and skills such as communication and critical thinking, which are related to processes aligned with adult learning, motivational, reflective and social learning theories. Conclusion: Overall, sparse studies to date with relatively low risk of bias found debate to be effective in enabling the learning of skills and content within health professions education. Future studies may want to incorporate more objective measures of the learning outcomes of learners following the adoption of debate as a teaching tool as well as to examine the combinatorial use of debate with other pedagogical tools and their longitudinal impact on learners and learning.