We found these results surprising and at odds with the majority of studies carried out in the general population and propose several reasons for the differences found. We believe that the results and further studies in this area will help inform health service provision for those with ID who live in different geographical areas.
Background and Objectives: The implementation of effective competency-based medical education (CBME) relies on building a coherent and integrated system of assessment across the continuum of training to practice. As such, the developmental progression of competencies must be assessed at all stages of the learning process, including continuing professional development (CPD). Yet, much of the recent discussion revolves mostly around residency programs. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the findings of studies spanning the last 2 decades that examined competency-based assessment methods used in family medicine residency and CPD, and to identify gaps in their current practices. Methods: We adopted a modified form of narrative review and searched five online databases and the gray literature for articles published between 2000 and 2020. Data analysis involved mixed methods including quantitative frequency analysis and qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Fourteen were formal evaluation studies that focused on the outcome and impact evaluation of assessment methods. Articles that focused on formative assessment were prevalent. The most common levels of educational outcomes were performance and competence. There were few studies on CBME assessment among practicing family physicians. Thematic analysis of the literature identified several challenges the family medicine educational community faces with CBME assessment. Conclusions: We recommend that those involved in health education systematically evaluate and publish their CBME activities, including assessment-related content and evaluations. The highlighted themes may offer insights into ways in which current CBME assessment practices might be improved to align with efforts to improve health care.’
ObjectivesTo identify what is known empirically about the screening, treatment and harm of exposure to neonatal hypoglycaemia.DesignScoping review that applied a preregistered protocol based on established frameworks.Data sourcesMedline and Embase, up to 12 May 2020.Study selectionComparative and case-series studies, as well as guidelines, published in English or French, on the topic of immediate inpatient postnatal glucose screening in newborns.Data gatheringArticle selection and characterisation were performed in duplicate using predefined data extraction forms specific to primary studies and guidelines.Results12 guidelines and 74 primary studies were included. A neurodevelopmental outcome was primary in 32 studies: 30 observational studies followed up posthypoglycaemic, and the 2 intervention studies included 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT) about treatment thresholds. Three other RCTs assessed dextrose gel (two) and oral sucrose (one). 12 of 30 studies that evaluated non-neurodevelopmental primary outcomes were intervention studies. Only one cohort study compared outcomes in screened vs unscreened newborns. The guidelines did not arrive at a consensus definition of postnatal hypoglycaemic, and addressed potential harms of screening more often than primary studies.ConclusionsThe primary literature that informs hypoglycaemia screening is a series of studies that relate neurodevelopmental outcomes to postnatal hypoglycaemia. Further research is needed to better define an optimal threshold for hypoglycaemia that warrants intervention, based on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes and a better delineation of potential screening harms.
ObjectivesThe goals of this study are to identify and analyse interventions that aim to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD in people who are vulnerably housed and to describe how these treatments have been delivered using trauma-informed care.DesignScoping review.Search strategyWe searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PTSDpubs for published literature up to November 2021 for any studies that examined the treatment of PTSD in adults who were vulnerably housed. Websites of relevant organisations and other grey literature sources were searched to supplement the electronic database search. The characteristics and effect of the interventions were analysed. We also explored how the interventions were delivered and the elements of trauma-informed care that were described.Results28 studies were included. We identified four types of interventions: (1) trauma focused psychotherapies; (2) non-trauma psychotherapies; (3) housing interventions and (4) pharmacotherapies. The trauma-informed interventions were small case series and the non-trauma focused therapies included four randomised controlled trials, were generally ineffective. Of the 10 studies which described trauma-informed care the most commonly named elements were physical and emotional safety, the experience of feeling heard and understood, and flexibility of choice. The literature also commented on the difficulty of providing care to this population including lack of private space to deliver therapy; the co-occurrence of substance use; and barriers to follow-up including limited length of stay in different shelters and high staff turnover.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified a lack of high-quality trials to address PTSD in people who are vulnerably housed. There is a need to conduct well designed trials that take into account the unique setting of this population and which describe those elements of trauma-informed care that are most important and necessary.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.