Search

Introduction: Health professions education (HPE) has adopted the conceptualization of validity as an argument. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of how validity arguments should be developed, used and evaluated in HPE have not been deeply explored. Articulating the argumentation theory undergirding validity and validation can help HPE better operationalise validity as an argument. To better understand this, the authors explored how HPE validity scholars conceptualise assessment validity arguments and argumentation, seeking to understand potential consequences of these views on validation practices. Methods: The authors used critical case sampling to identify HPE assessment validity experts in three ways: (1) participation in a prominent validity research group, (2) appearing in a bibliometric study of HPE validity publications and (3) authorship of recent HPE validity literature. Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 16 experts in HPE assessment validity from four different countries. The authors used reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes relevant to their research question. Results: The authors developed three themes grounded in participants' responses: (1) In theory, HPE validity is a social and situated argument. (2) In practice, the absence of audience and evaluation stymies the social nature of HPE validity. (3) Lack of validity argumentation creates and maintains power differentials within HPE. Participants articulated that current HPE validation practices are rooted in post‐positivist epistemology when they should be situated (i.e. context‐dependent), audience‐centric and inclusive. Discussion: When discussing validity argumentation in theory, participants' descriptions reflect an interpretivist lens for evaluation that is misaligned with real‐world validity practices. This misalignment likely arises from HPE's adoption of "validity as an argument" as a slogan, without integrating theoretical and practical principles of argumentation theory. How do HPE experts conceptualize the argumentation aspect of validity? @Midwest_MedPeds @ab_martini @LaraVarpio @erikdriessen @DrDanSchumacher explore the gap between theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During placements abroad, healthcare students are confronted with different personal and professional challenges, related to participation in practice. This study investigates when and how students respond to such challenges, and which coping and support mechanisms students use to overcome these. Twenty-five international students shared their experiences about physiotherapy placement in The Netherlands. Using a critical incident technique, we asked participants to recall events where participation was affected by an unforeseen situation, in or outside the clinic. Further, we explored students' strategies of seeking support within their social network to overcome individual challenges. Two researchers applied thematic analysis to the interview data, following an iterative approach. Team discussions supported focused direction of data collection and analysis, before conceptualizing results. Participants described a wide range of challenges. The scope and impact level of challenges varied widely, including intercultural differences, language barriers and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, students' personal context and wellbeing. Mechanisms employed by students to overcome these challenges depended on the type of event (personal or professional), making purposeful use of their available network. Students involve clinical staff, peers, family and friends during placement abroad, to make deliberate use of their support network to overcome challenges in participation, whereas the academic network remains distant. Findings may help reflect on the roles and responsibilities of academic staff and other professionals involved with placements abroad. Healthcare programmes should ensure support before, during and after placement is within students' reach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early curricular exposure to interprofessional education (IPE) is intended to acclimatize health professional trainees to shared-care in the practice settings they will ultimately join. However, IPE activities typically reside outside actual organizational and social systems in which interprofessional care is delivered. We aimed to explore how pharmacist trainees experience collaborator and communicator competency roles during team-based workplace-based learning. Participants maintained written diaries reflecting on interprofessional collaboration and communication during an eight-week hospital clerkship. Diary entries and transcripts from semi-structured follow-up interviews were analyzed from the social constructivist perspective using reflective thematic analysis. Participant accounts of on-ward activities represented most collaborator and communicator roles outlined in pharmacy and interprofessional competency frameworks, but were predominantly between the pharmacist trainee and physicians. Pharmacist trainees did not routinely engage with other health professions on a daily basis. Additionally, reported encounters with other team members were typically information exchanges and not episodes of authentic interdependent or shared care. Interactions were almost completely devoid of perceived interpersonal or role conflict. These findings offer insight into how pharmacist trainees perceive and develop competencies for team-based care. Further work is required to understand how such limited scope of interprofessional communication and collaboration might ultimately impair quality patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency—a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context—to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. Method: We conducted a mixed‐methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi‐author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). Results: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task‐based and negotiated. Discussion: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point—the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step—the enacted and narrated approach to the game. Konopasky et al highlight the complex nature of agency in author teams. Interviews with first authors suggest three broad agency types: distributed (across team and resources), individual (first author) and collaborative (joint action). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical supervisors acknowledge that they sometimes allow trainees to fail for educational purposes. What remains unknown is how supervisors decide whether to allow failure in a specific instance. Given the high stakes nature of these decisions, such knowledge is necessary to inform conversations about this educationally powerful and clinically delicate phenomenon. 19 supervisors participated in semi-structured interviews to explore how they view their decision to allow failure in clinical training. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, the iteratively collected data and analysis were informed by theoretical sampling. Recalling instances when they considered allowing residents to fail for educational purposes, supervisors characterized these as intuitive, in-the-moment decisions. In their post hoc reflections, they could articulate four factors that they believed influenced these decisions: patient, supervisor, trainee, and environmental factors. While patient factors were reported as primary, the factors appear to interact in dynamic and nonlinear ways, such that supervisory decisions about allowing failure may not be predictable from one situation to the next. Clinical supervisors make many decisions in the moment, and allowing resident failure appears to be one of them. Upon reflection, supervisors understand their decisions to be shaped by recurring factors in the clinical training environment. The complex interplay among these factors renders predicting such decisions difficult, if not impossible. However, having a language for these dynamic factors can support clinical educators to have meaningful discussions about this high-stakes educational strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Processes involved in the regulation of learning have been researched for decades, because of its impact on academic and workplace performance. In fact, self‐regulated learning is the focus of countless studies in health professions education and higher education in general. While we will always need competent individuals who are able to regulate their own learning, developments in healthcare require a shift from a focus on the individual to the collective: collaboration within and between healthcare teams is at the heart of high‐quality patient care. Concepts of collaborative learning and collective competence challenge commonly held conceptualisations of regulatory learning and call for a focus on the social embeddedness of regulatory learning and processes regulating the learning of the collective. Therefore, this article questions the alignment of current conceptualisations of regulation of learning with demands for collaboration in current healthcare. We explore different conceptualisations of regulation of learning (self‐, co‐, and socially shared regulation of learning), and elaborate on how the integration of these conceptualisations adds to our understanding of regulatory learning in healthcare settings. Building on these insights, we furthermore suggest ways forward for research and educational practice. Bransen et al. explore the concept of 'self' to argue that the health professions need to shift from striving to optimize self‐regulation to understanding how to effectively regulate across self‐, co‐, and shared‐regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differences in professional practice might hinder initiation of student participation during international placements, and thereby limit workplace learning. This study explores how healthcare students overcome differences in professional practice during initiation of international placements. Twelve first-year physiotherapy students recorded individual audio diaries during the first month of international clinical placement. Recordings were transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed following a template analysis approach. Team discussions focused on thematic interpretation of results. Students described tackling differences in professional practice via ongoing negotiations of practice between them, local professionals, and peers. Three themes were identified as the focus of students' orientation and adjustment efforts: professional practice, educational context, and individual approaches to learning. Healthcare students' initiation during international placements involved a cyclical process of orientation and adjustment, supported by active participation, professional dialogue, and self-regulated learning strategies. Initiation of student participation during international placements can be supported by establishing a continuous dialogue between student and healthcare professionals. This dialogue helps align mutual expectations regarding scope of practice, and increase understanding of professional and educational practices. Better understanding, in turn, creates trust and favors meaningful students' contribution to practice and patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPurposeMethodsResultsConclusionsInternational Medical Programmes (IMPs) form a distinctive modality in medical education, with diverse student populations, English as a language of instruction and ‘globalized’ curricula. A lack of common understanding of IMPs’ purposes and role in the medical education landscape triggers critiques. This study aims to document the effects of different discourses used to justify the purpose of IMPs.We use a discourse analysis approach to explore the different ways in which the purposes of IMPs are constructed at the regulatory, institutional, and individual level, and how these discourses interact. The research situates in two IMPs, in the Netherlands and in Hungary. Key-informant interviews, policy documents, and scholarly literature form the archive.The purpose of IMPs is constructed discursively around three distinct narratives and associated practices: around serving the institutions that host them, around serving the (global) public interest, and around serving individual students. Co-existence and misalignments of these three discourses cause conflicting practices and confusion among stakeholders.This study illustrates how diverging perspectives on internationalization in medical education create tensions for learners and staff. Articulating a clear and explicit meaning to internationalization may reduce uncertainties, and may reinforce realistic expectations of what constitutes a good outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]