Search

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]

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]

Introduction: When medical education programs have difficulties recruiting or retaining clinical teachers, they often introduce incentives to help improve motivation. Previous research, however, has shown incentives can unfortunately have unintended consequences. When and why that is the case in the context of incentivizing clinical teachers remains unclear. The purposes of this study, therefore, were to understand what values and motivations influence teaching decisions; and to delve deeper into how teaching incentives have been perceived. Methods: An interpretive description methodology was used to improve understanding of the development and delivery of teaching incentives. A purposeful sampling strategy identified a heterogenous sample of clinical faculty teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate contexts. Sixteen semi‐structured interviews were conducted and transcripts were analyzed using an iterative process to develop a thematic structure that accounts for general trends and individual variations. Results: Clinicians articulated interrelated and dynamic personal and environmental factors that had linear, dual‐edged and inverted U‐shaped impacts on their motivations towards teaching. Barriers were frequently rationalized away, but cumulative barriers often led to teaching attrition. Clinical teachers were motivated when they felt valued and connected to their learners, peers, leadership, and/or the medical education community. While incentives aimed at producing these connections could be perceived as supportive, they could also negatively impact motivation if they were impersonal, inequitable, inefficient, or poorly framed. Discussion/Conclusion: These findings reinforce the literature suggesting that it is necessary to proceed with caution when labeling any particular factor as a motivator or barrier to teaching. They take us deeper, however, towards understanding how and why clinical teachers' perceptions are unique, dynamic and fluid. Incentive schemes can be beneficial for teacher recruitment and retention, but must be designed with nuance that takes into account what makes clinicians feel valued if the strategy is to do more good than harm. When do incentives backfire? Wisener et al. explore how schemes intended to support clinicians in their teaching roles should be crafted with care given their complex – and at times surprising – influences on motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students perceive reflective writing as difficult. Concept mapping may be an alternative format for reflection, which provides support while allowing students to freely shape their thoughts. We examined (1) the quality of reflection in reflective concept maps created by first-year medical students and (2) students' perceptions about concept mapping as a tool for reflection. Mixed-method study conducted within the medical curriculum of Maastricht University, The Netherlands, consisting of: (1) Analysis of the quality of reflection in 245 reflective concept maps created by 40 first-year students. Reflection quality was analysed by assessing focus of reflection (technical/practical/sensitising) and depth of reflection (description/justification/critique/discussion). (2) Semi-structured interviews with 22 students to explore perceived effectiveness of reflective concept mapping. Depth of reflection reached at least the level of critique in 82% of maps. Three factors appeared to affect the perceived effectiveness of concept mapping for reflection: (1) reflective concept map structure; (2) alertness to meaningful experiences in practice and (3) learning by doing. These results yielded supportive evidence for concept mapping as a useful technique to teach novice learners the basics of effective reflection. Meaningful implementation requires a delicate balance between providing a supportive structure and allowing flexibility for the student. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Medical students are expected to self‐regulate their learning within complex and unpredictable clinical learning environments. Research increasingly focuses on the effects of social interactions on the development of self‐regulation in workplace settings, a notion embodied within the concept of co‐regulated learning (CRL). Creating workplace learning environments that effectively foster lifelong self‐regulated learning (SRL) requires a deeper understanding of the relationship between CRL and SRL. The aim of this study was therefore to explore medical students' perceptions of CRL in clinical clerkships and its perceived impact on the development of their SRL. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 11 purposively sampled medical students enrolled in clinical clerkships at one undergraduate competency‐based medical school. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively, informed by principles of constructivist grounded theory. Data analysis followed stages of open, axial and selective coding, which enabled us to conceptualise how co‐regulation influences the development of students' self‐regulation. Results: Data revealed three interrelated shifts in CRL and SRL as students progressed through clerkships. First, students' CRL shifted from a focus on peers to co‐regulation with clinician role models. Second, self‐regulated behaviour shifted from being externally driven to being internally driven. Last, self‐regulation shifted from a task‐oriented approach towards a more comprehensive approach focusing on professional competence and identity formation. Students indicated that if they felt able to confidently and proactively self‐regulate their learning, the threshold for engaging others in meaningful CRL seemed to be lowered, enhancing further development of SRL skills. Conclusions: Findings from the current study emphasise the notion that SRL and its development are grounded in CRL in clinical settings. To optimally support the development of students' SRL, we need to focus on facilitating and organising learners' engagement in CRL from the start of the medical curriculum. Is self‐regulated learning entirely self‐regulated? Bransen et al. share data demonstrating it to be embedded in co‐regulated learning, characterized shifts in regulatory focus, drivers for regulation, and co‐regulation partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite increasing calls for patient and public involvement in health‐care quality improvement, the question of how patient evaluations can contribute to physician learning and performance assessment has received scant attention. Objective: The objective of this study was to explore, amid calls for patient involvement in quality assurance, patients' perspectives on their role in the evaluation of physician performance and to support physicians' learning and decision making on professional competence. Design: A qualitative study based on semi‐structured interviews. Setting and Participants: The study took place in a secondary care setting in the Netherlands. The authors selected 25 patients from two Dutch hospitals and through the Dutch Lung Foundation, using purposive sampling. Methods: Data were analysed according to the principles of template analysis, based on an a priori coding framework developed from the literature about patient empowerment, feedback and performance assessment. Results: The analysis unearthed three predominant patient perspectives: the proactive perspective, the restrained perspective and the outsider perspective. These perspectives differed in terms of perceived power dynamics within the doctor‐patient relationship, patients' perceived ability, and willingness to provide feedback and evaluate their physician's performance. Patients' perspectives thus affected the role patients envisaged for themselves in evaluating physician performance. Discussion and conclusion: Although not all patients are equally suitable or willing to be involved, patients can play a role in evaluating physician performance and continuing training through formative approaches. To involve patients successfully, it is imperative to distinguish between different patient perspectives and empower patients by ensuring a safe environment for feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Construct: The globalization of healthcare has been accentuated by the export of health professional curricula overseas. Yet intact translation of pedagogies and practices devised in one cultural setting may not be possible or necessarily appropriate for alternate environments. Purposeful examination of workplace learning is necessary to understand how the source or "home" program may need adapting in the distributed or "host" setting. Background: Strategies to optimize cross-border medical education partnerships have been largely focused on elements of campus-based learning. Determining how host clinical supervisors approach assessment in experiential settings within a different culture and uphold the standards of home programs is relevant given the influence of context on trainees' demonstrated competencies. In this mixed-methods study, we sought to explore assessor judgments of student workplace-based performance made by preceptors sharing a pharmacy curriculum in Canada and Qatar. Approach: Using modified Delphi consensus technique, we asked clinical supervisors in Canada (n = 18) and in Qatar (n = 14) to categorize trainee performance as described in 16 student vignettes. The proportion of ratings for three levels of expectation (exceeds, meets, or below) was calculated and within-country group consensus achieved if the level of agreement reached 80%. Between-country group comparisons were measured using a chi-square statistic. We then conducted follow-up semi-structured interviews to gain further perspectives and clarify assessor rationale. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: The threshold for between-country group differences in assessor impressions was met for only two of the 16 student vignettes. Compared to Canadian clinical supervisors, relatively more preceptors in Qatar judged one described student as meets rather than exceeds expectations and one as meets rather than falls below expectations. Analysis of follow-up interviews exploring how culture may inform variations in assessor judgments identified themes associated with the profession, organization, learner, and supervisor performance theories but not their particular geographic context. Clinical supervisors in both countries were largely aligned in expectations of student knowledge, skills, and behaviors demonstrated in patient care and multidisciplinary team interactions. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that variation in student assessment was more frequent among clinical supervisors within the same national context than any differences identified between the two countries. In these program settings, national sociocultural norms did not predict global assessor impressions or competency-specific judgments; instead, professional and organizational cultures were more likely to inform student characterizations of performance in workplace-based settings. Further study situated within the specific experiential learning contexts of cross-border health professional curricula is assuredly warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]