The complexity of health sciences programmes justifies scaffolding to support students in becoming competent health professionals. This article reports on an integrative review that aimed to describe the application of scaffolding in health sciences programmes. Twenty-nine sources, inclusive of theoretical and empirical studies, were reviewed. The sequencing of educational activities, the application of scaffolding tools or resources, frameworks for applying scaffolding, modelling, and fading represented the application of scaffolding in health sciences programmes. Awareness of the application of scaffolding in health sciences programmes could contribute to enhancing competence development among students when applied across all learning platforms.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Health sciences programmes operate in complex, unpredictable contexts, underscoring the need for comprehensive scaffolding of the learning processes. Yet, the scaffolding approaches remain fragmented, and lack a shared approach to how programmes could integrate scaffolding across the curricula. The literature argues that standards result in the comprehensive implementation of educational practices. There are no reported standards related to scaffolding practices in these programmes. OBJECTIVES To develop standards for scaffolding in health sciences programmes utilising a consensus approach through a modified Delphi Technique. METHODS Following the recommendations on Conducting and REporting of DElphi Studies (CREDES), an online modified Delphi technique was applied. Evidence on the application of scaffolding in health sciences programmes, obtained through an integrative review, was synthesised to draft standards. Using purposive and snowball sampling, an international panel from diverse geographical and professional backgrounds refined and validated the standards. Descriptive statistics was utilised to analyse demographic data and consensus agreements to include standards and criteria. Qualitative analysis of textual comments ensured the synthesis and inclusion of critical divergent views and additions. RESULTS A total of 22 experts from around the globe agreed to participate in the study and one did not complete Delphi surveys. Most experts ( n = 18) held a PhD; and an average of 19 years of teaching in health sciences programmes. Four standards and 27 criteria were included after achieving consensus during the two Delphi surveys rounds. The included standards focused on four areas: structuring and sequencing educational activities, resources/tools for scaffolding, structuring the programme and instructional strategies to support learning. CONCLUSION The principle-based standards developed in this study could direct and support scaffolding practices in health sciences programmes. The standards’ emphases on macro-, meso- and micro-scaffolding present numerous opportunities for designing and applying contextually sensitive scaffolding strategies at every level of curriculum implementation.