Grant Rachel E, Sajdlowska Joanna, Van Hoof Thomas J, Kitto Simon
Ms. Grant: Research Associate, Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto. Ms. Sajdlowska: Research Assistant, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Dr. Van Hoof: Associate Professor, University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, and Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington. Dr. Kitto: Director of Research, Continuing Professional Development and Associate Professor, Department of Innovation in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015 Fall;35 Suppl 2:S70-4. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000010.
Within continuing medication education (CME), it has been argued that an "authentic" clinical context should be built into CME activities for knowledge to be effectively translated into clinical practice. However, although context is considered significant in the success (or lack thereof) of an intervention, there is a lack of consensus on what exactly context is. This scoping review arises from concerns surrounding the opaque, complex, and potentially problematic relationship between context and the effective design and implementation of CME interventions. In this article, we present a protocol for examining how context is discussed within the CME literature. The specific purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the breadth of existing evidence on context within the North American CME literature. The scoping review methodology will also highlight gaps in the current literature, which can inform future research endeavors.
在继续医学教育(CME)中,有人认为,为了将知识有效地转化为临床实践,应该在继续医学教育活动中构建一个“真实的”临床环境。然而,尽管环境被认为对干预的成功(或失败)至关重要,但对于环境到底是什么,却缺乏共识。这项范围综述源于对环境与继续医学教育干预措施的有效设计和实施之间不透明、复杂且可能存在问题的关系的担忧。在本文中,我们提出了一个方案,用于研究继续医学教育文献中如何讨论环境。这项范围综述的具体目的是总结北美继续医学教育文献中关于环境的现有证据的广度。范围综述方法还将突出当前文献中的空白,为未来的研究工作提供参考。