Dataset Information

The pediatrics milestones: conceptual framework, guiding principles, and approach to development.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) have partnered to initiate the Pediatrics Milestone Project to further refine the 6 ACGME competencies and to set performance standards as part of the continued commitment to document outcomes of training and program effectiveness. INTERVENTION: Members of the Pediatrics Milestone Project Working Group searched the medical literature and beyond to create a synopsis of models and evidence for a developmental ontogeny of the elements for 52 subcompetencies. For each subcompetency, we created a series of Milestones, grounded in the literature. The milestones were vetted with the entire working group, engaging in an iterative process of revisions until reaching consensus that their narrative descriptions (1) included all critical elements, (2) were behaviorally based, (3) were properly sequenced, and (4) represented the educational continuum of training and practice. OUTCOMES: We have completed the first iteration of milestones for all subcompetencies. For each milestone, a synopsis of relevant literature provides background, references, and a conceptual framework. These milestones provide narrative descriptions of behaviors that represent the ontogeny of knowledge, skill, and attitude development across the educational continuum of training and practice. DISCUSSION: The pediatrics milestones take us a step closer to meaningful outcome assessment. Next steps include undertaking rigorous study, making appropriate modifications, and setting performance standards. Our aim is to assist program directors in making more reliable and valid judgments as to whether a resident is a "good doctor" and to provide outcome evidence regarding the program's success in developing doctors.

SUBMITTER: Hicks PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2951782 | biostudies-other | 2010 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNumerous determinants have been linked to public mental health; however, they have not been brought together in a comprehensive conceptual framework. The goal of this work was to bring together academic research, practitioner expertise, and public perspectives to create a public mental health conceptual framework.MethodsThe development process proceeded in four stages. First, we identified a comprehensive list of potential determinants through a state-of-the-art academic literature review, grey literature review, and created mind maps created by peer researchers. Next, we conducted in-person workshops, consultations, and an online survey with academics, practitioners, policy makers, and members of the public to review the potential determinants, nominate additional determinants, and prioritise determinants by importance for understanding public mental health. This iterative process resulted in the final list of determinants contained in the framework. We then conducted rapid reviews to define each determinant and to identify key research, interventions, and resources. Finally, we worked with a design team to visualise the conceptual framework as an online tool and printable infographic.ResultsWe found substantial overlap between sources reflecting a shared understanding of the key drivers of public mental health. The unique determinants that emerged from each data source highlighted the importance of using multiple sources to create a comprehensive model. 72 potential determinants were prioritised through stakeholder consultations, resulting in a final list of 55 determinants and organised into four levels: individual, family, community, and structural.ConclusionsThis is the most complete conceptual framework for public mental health to date, bringing together academic research, policy and practitioner views, and lived experience perspectives. The co-production processes and tools we used provides a template for researchers looking to include multiple perspectives in their research. The conceptual framework draws together current knowledge on each determinant, but also highlights areas where further research is needed to better understand the relationship between each factor and mental health, which can inform the research agenda. This online tool and infographic can be used by practitioners to identify interventions for promoting mental health, and by the general public as a resource to increase awareness of the broad factors which shape public mental health.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prognostic research has many important purposes, including (i) describing the natural history and clinical course of health conditions, (ii) investigating variables associated with health outcomes of interest, (iii) estimating an individual's probability of developing different outcomes, (iv) investigating the clinical application of prediction models, and (v) investigating determinants of recovery that can inform the development of interventions to improve patient outcomes. But much prognostic research has been poorly conducted and interpreted, indicating that a number of conceptual areas are often misunderstood. Recent initiatives to improve this include the Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) and the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Statement. In this paper, we aim to show how different categories of prognostic research relate to each other, to differentiate exploratory and confirmatory studies, discuss moderators and mediators, and to show how important it is to understand study designs and the differences between prediction and causation. MAIN TEXT:We propose that there are four main objectives of prognostic studies - description, association, prediction and causation. By causation, we mean the effect of prediction and decision rules on outcomes as determined by intervention studies and the investigation of whether a prognostic factor is a determinant of outcome (on the causal pathway). These either fall under the umbrella of exploratory (description, association, and prediction model development) or confirmatory (prediction model external validation and investigation of causation). Including considerations of causation within a prognostic framework provides a more comprehensive roadmap of how different types of studies conceptually relate to each other, and better clarity about appropriate model performance measures and the inferences that can be drawn from different types of prognostic studies. We also propose definitions of 'candidate prognostic factors', 'prognostic factors', 'prognostic determinants (causal)' and 'prognostic markers (non-causal)'. Furthermore, we address common conceptual misunderstandings related to study design, analysis, and interpretation of multivariable models from the perspectives of association, prediction and causation. CONCLUSION:This paper uses a framework to clarify some concepts in prognostic research that remain poorly understood and implemented, to stimulate discussion about how prognostic studies can be strengthened and appropriately interpreted.

Dataset Information

The pediatrics milestones: conceptual framework, guiding principles, and approach to development.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets