Grant Rachel E, Van Hoof Thomas J, Sajdlowska Joanna, Miller Nicole E, Kitto Simon
Ms. Grant: Project Manager, Department of Surgery, and Research Associate, Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Dr. Van Hoof: Associate Professor, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, CT, and Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT. Ms. Sajdlowska: Research Assistant, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Ms. Miller: Research Assistant, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Dr. Kitto: Associate Professor, Department of Innovation in Medical Education, and Director of Research, Office of Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015 Fall;35 Suppl 2:S45-50. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000014.
Researchers and leaders working in quality improvement and continuing education have a variety of interventions available to change clinician behavior and to improve patient outcomes. Evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such interventions is often mixed, with methodological weaknesses contributing to challenges in summarizing and interpreting evidence. Confusion and inconsistency surrounding many of the terms contributes to this challenge. This international study was commissioned by the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education to use expert opinion to improve the consistency of important educational terminology by describing the essential components of a set of educational interventions, such as educational meetings. This article will describe how this project uses the literature and an expert consensus process to improve precision around the conceptualization and implementation of educational interventions. This article will offer an in-depth description of a hybrid methodology that blends the Chaffee framework for concept explication with a modified Delphi technique that constitutes a novel expert consensus process. This article concludes with recommendations for other scholars replicating this process.
从事质量改进和继续教育工作的研究人员及领导者有多种干预措施可用于改变临床医生的行为并改善患者治疗效果。对此类干预措施进行系统评价和荟萃分析得出的证据往往参差不齐，方法上的缺陷给总结和解释证据带来了挑战。许多术语周围的混淆和不一致加剧了这一挑战。这项国际研究由学术继续医学教育协会委托开展，旨在通过描述一系列教育干预措施（如教育会议）的基本组成部分，利用专家意见提高重要教育术语的一致性。本文将描述该项目如何利用文献和专家共识过程来提高教育干预措施概念化和实施的精确性。本文将深入描述一种混合方法，该方法将用于概念阐释的查菲框架与一种经过改进的德尔菲技术相结合，构成了一种新颖的专家共识过程。本文最后针对其他学者复制这一过程提出了建议。
Zotero 插件