Centre for Educational Research in Medical Sciences (CERMS), Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
School of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies, The Open University, Walton Hall, Kents Hill, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK, England.
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Mar 22;24(1):325. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05283-8.
"Student engagement" (SE) is gaining momentum as an approach to improve the performance of health professions education (HPE). Nevertheless, despite the broad studies about the role of students in various areas, little is known about the role of SE in policy and decision-making activities. This study aimed to map SE in policy and decision-making regarding terms and definitions, engagement models, influencing factors, outcomes and achievements, and the interconnection between the influencing factors.
Five databases (PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and ERIC) were systematically searched from Jan 1, 1990, to Nov 12, 2022. The review was followed according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We included articles published in English focusing on HPE policy and decision-making. The authors summarized and synthesized the findings into themes, subthemes, tables, and models.
Of the 22 articles included in the full-text review, terms and definitions were tabled, and three themes were extracted: 1. models of SE, in which 10 studies (45.5%) presented the highly structured formal models as Organizations, 5 studies (22.7%) reported less-structured community and group as Programs, and 7 studies (31.8%) engaged students only in surveys or interviews as Perspective; 2. Factors influencing SE, that were categorized into 7 subthemes: structural, environmental, and motivational factors, member characteristics, training and mentoring, member relationships, valuing and recognizing. 3. Outcomes and achievements of SE related to systems and members. The interconnection between influencing factors is also demonstrated as a conceptual model.
There are various SE models in HPE policy and decision-making, which are mapped and categorized depending on the degree of formality, structuredness, and level of engagement. In our study, three more common SE models in HPE policy and decision-making were investigated. Additionally, these collaborative methods emphasized curriculum development and quality assurance and employed students in these activities. It is worth mentioning that to make SE models more efficient and sustainable, several influencing factors and their interconnections should be considered.
“学生参与”（SE）作为一种提高健康职业教育（HPE）绩效的方法，正在逐渐受到关注。然而，尽管有广泛的研究涉及学生在各个领域的作用，但对于 SE 在政策和决策活动中的作用知之甚少。本研究旨在绘制 SE 在政策和决策中的作用，包括术语和定义、参与模型、影响因素、结果和成就，以及影响因素之间的相互关系。
从 1990 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 11 月 12 日，系统地在五个数据库（PubMed、Scopus、ProQuest、Web of Science 和 ERIC）中进行了检索。本综述遵循 Arksey 和 O'Malley 框架进行，根据 PRISMA-ScR 指南进行报告。我们纳入了聚焦 HPE 政策和决策的发表于英文期刊的文章。作者总结并综合了研究结果，形成主题、子主题、表格和模型。
在全文审查中，有 22 篇文章被纳入，其中术语和定义被制成表格，共提取了三个主题：1. SE 模型，其中 10 项研究（45.5%）提出了高度结构化的正式模型，如组织；5 项研究（22.7%）报告了不太结构化的社区和团体模型，如项目；7 项研究（31.8%）仅让学生参与调查或访谈，如视角；2. 影响 SE 的因素，分为 7 个子主题：结构、环境和动机因素、成员特征、培训和指导、成员关系、重视和认可。3. SE 与系统和成员相关的结果和成就。影响因素之间的相互关系也以概念模型的形式呈现。
在 HPE 政策和决策中，有各种 SE 模型，这些模型根据正式程度、结构化程度和参与程度进行映射和分类。在我们的研究中，还调查了 HPE 政策和决策中三种更为常见的 SE 模型。此外，这些合作方法强调课程开发和质量保证，并在这些活动中使用学生。值得注意的是，为了使 SE 模型更加高效和可持续，应该考虑到几个影响因素及其相互关系。
