Educational Curricula and Programs in Adolescent Medicine for Health Workers in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review

Brown, Sarah Jane; Pfeffer, Betsy; Kitaka, Sabrina Bakeera

doi:10.4300/jgme-d-19-00052

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We included 101 studies (See Appendix for a diagram of the inclusion process) 18‐118 . On average 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4, range 0‐42) were published annually (See Appendix ) with the most published in 2019 (n = 42; 41.6%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical Teacher did not publish any scoping reviews during this time period. Thirty‐eight scoping reviews (37.6%) 19,26,28,34,38,40,41,44,49,51,53,58,60,62,65,66,70,72‐75,87,88,90,92,96,97,100‐102,105,106,109,110,112,117 reported funding that supported the work with nearly half (39.5%) 41,44,49,70,72,73,75,87,88,90,92,100,101,105,115 of those funded receiving public funds. All reviews synthesised journal articles, with 28.7% (n = 29) also including book chapters, grey literature, dissertations, websites, posters and conference proceedings 19,23,30,31,34,38‐40,42,51,56,57,59,61,63,64,71,75,76,88,92,93,95,99,104,106,108,114,117 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were, on average, 2.6 rationales stated per review (SD = 1.4, median = 3;). The most often stated rationales were: to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77; 87.5%) 18‐28,30‐33,36,37,39,40,43‐45,48‐54,56,58‐60,65,66,68,72,74‐79,81,82,85‐93,95,96,99‐101,103‐116,118 ; to examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity in a given area (n = 74; 84.1%) 18‐22,24‐27,30‐33,35‐37,39,40,43,44,48‐54,56,59‐63,65,66,68,72,74‐79,81,82,84‐93,95,96,99‐101,103‐106,108‐116,118 ; and to contend with the nature of the study topic or available literature (n = 46; 52.3%) …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirteen reviews (12.9%) cited following the PRISMA, 31 and five (5.0%) the PRISMA-ScR. 13,[32][33][34][35][36] Table 3 summarizes the components of the PRISMA-ScR present in the included scoping reviews. For details by study, see https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12699698.v1.…”

Section: Figure 1: Flow Diagram Of Study Inclusion Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Maggio

Larsen

Costello

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize the extent, range, and nature of scoping reviews published in core medical education journals. In so doing, the authors identify areas for improvement in the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, and highlight opportunities for future research.MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1999 through April 2020 in 14 medical education journals. From each review, the authors extracted and summarized key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions, and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. Rationales and research questions were mapped to the reasons for conducting a scoping review, as described by Arksey and O’Malley.ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average 10.1 scoping reviews (MED=4, SD=13.08) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n=42) in 13 of the included 14 journals reviewed. Academic Medicine published the most scoping reviews (n=28) overall. Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, including to: summarize and disseminate research findings (n=77); examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity in a given area (n=74); and to analyze an emerging topic or heterogenous literature base (n=46). In 11 reviews there was alignment between the rationales for the scoping review and the stated research questions. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with only a minority of authors publishing a protocol (n=2) or including stakeholders (n=20). Authors identified several shortcomings of scoping review methodology, including being unable to critically assess the included studies.ConclusionsMedical educators are increasingly conducting scoping reviews with a desire to characterize the literature on a topic. There is room for improvement in the reporting of scoping reviews, including the alignment of research questions, the creation and publishing of protocols, and the inclusion of external stakeholders in published works.

show abstract

“…Vus and Alekseiev draw attention to the shortage of primary care in Ukraine and efforts to align GME curricula through the development of core competencies based on local needs. 11 Reviews by Miller et al 12 and Talib et al 13 summarize the history and current state of international workforce development, and 3 studies describe novel models to build capacity in key workforce areas important for access to health care in low and lower-middle income countries (Tuyishime et al, 14 Khan et al, 15 Crouch and Williams 16 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%