Professionalism among paramedic students: achieving the measure or missing the mark?

Abstract

BackgroundProfessionalism is a pillar of paramedicine. Internationally paramedic curricula emphasize valid assessment of three domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains (professionalism). Little is reported on competency measures for professionalism specific to paramedicine. Literature suggests that paramedic students, paramedic practitioners, medical directors, and patients believe that professional attributes should have an increased focus.ObjectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to outline valid and reliable assessments that evaluate professional behaviors.MethodThis review used Arksey and O’Malley’s six-stage scoping methodology. In September 2016, five databases were searched for articles of relevance; these were MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, PsycINFO/APA, and EMBASE.ResultsA total of 1587 articles were identified after removal of 468 duplicates. Five articles met the inclusion criteria, two of the articles were from the US and three from UK. The studies range from 2004 to 2014. Three different scales were identified but only two were recommended for use. A US-based scale is composed of 11 items and one generic form of professionalism. The UK scale has 77 items and identified 11 factors within 68 items.ConclusionsThis scoping review serves to describe valid and reliable measures for professionalism among paramedicine by outlining the quantity of instruments evident in the literature. The scoping review aimed to report the scales supporting evidence of validity and reliability. Three scales were identified in a total of five different studies that specifically measured professional attributes in paramedicine. Currently, two scales are available: an evaluation with 11 items and a self-reported questionnaire with 77 items.

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

“…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%).…”

“…A single review featured one author only 111 . Lead authors were based in 16 countries with the majority in Canada (n = 31, 30.7%), 18,19,22,24,28,37,40,47,57,62,71,80,81,86,94,95,97‐100,102,103,106,108,112‐118 the United States (n = 27, 26.7%) 32,35,36,38,41‐45,48,49,52‐55,59,61,68,72‐74,77,82,91,92,104,109 and Australia (n = 9, 8.9%) 30,46,58,67,75,79,89,93,96 . In 23 reviews (22.8%), authors described their team members' backgrounds and expertise in relation to their scoping review 20‐22,27,33,34,43,44,58,60,66,67,71‐74,76,86,88,97,99,104,112 .…”

“…While not all scoping reviews had available citation data, those that did (n = 89) were cited, on average, 6.4 times (SD = 11.7, median = 2, range 0‐61) 19‐23,25‐32.34‐37,39,40,44‐46,48‐58,60‐71,73‐81,83‐90,92‐118 . Eighteen articles (17.8%) had not been cited 19‐23,25,26,28‐31,37,39,45,53,54,78,88 ; of those, 10 (55.6%) 19‐23,25,26,28,37,54 were published after 2019.…”

“…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%) …”

“…While the PRISMA‐ScR is quite detailed, we charted additional study details based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework as modified by Levac (See Table 2). 2,5 Most reviews described following Arksey and O'Malley's framework (n = 73, 72.3%) 2,18‐35,37,39‐42,44‐46,48‐50,53‐56,58,59,62‐66,69,70,72,74,75,77‐80,83,84,86‐90,93,95‐106,111,113,114,117,118 and 32 (31.7%) 22,23,26,27,31‐34,40,42,44‐46,53,54,56,62,64,69,77‐79,83,87,90,97,100,101,104,105,113,117 of these reviews used Levac's revision 5 …”