Introduction: We undertook a systematic review to identify the best evidence for how professionalism in medicine should be taught. Methods: Eligible studies included any articles published between 1999 and 2009 inclusive. We reviewed papers presenting viewpoints and opinions as well as empirical research. We performed a comparative and thematic synthesis on all papers meeting inclusion criteria in order to capture the best available evidence on how to teach professionalism. Results: We identified 217 papers on how to teach professionalism. Of these, we determined 43 to be best evidence. Few studies provided comprehensive evaluation or assessment data demonstrating success. As yet, there has not emerged a unifying theoretical or practical model to integrate the teaching of professionalism into the medical curriculum. Discussion: Evident themes in the literature are that role modelling and personal reflections, ideally guided by faculty, are the important elements in current teaching programmes, and are widely held to be the most effective techniques for developing professionalism. While it is generally held that professionalism should be part of the whole of a medical curriculum, the specifics of sequence, depth, detail, and the nature of how to integrate professionalism with other curriculum elements remain matters of evolving theory.
Introduction: We undertook a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature to identify how professionalism is defined in the medical education literature. Methods: Eligible studies included any articles published between 1999 and 2009 inclusive presenting viewpoints, opinions, or empirical research on defining medical professionalism. Results: We identified 195 papers on the topic of definition of professionalism in medicine. Of these, we rated 26 as high quality and included these in the narrative synthesis. Conclusion: As yet there is no overarching conceptual context of medical professionalism that is universally agreed upon. The continually shifting nature of the organizational and social milieu in which medicine operates creates a dynamic situation where no definition has yet taken hold as definitive.
BackgroundThis study aimed to estimate rates of chlamydia incidence and re-infection and to investigate the dynamics of chlamydia organism load in prevalent, incident and re-infections among young Australian women.Methods1,116 women aged 16 to 25 years were recruited from primary care clinics in Australia. Vaginal swabs were collected at 3 to 6 month intervals for chlamydia testing. Chlamydia organism load was measured by quantitative PCR.ResultsThere were 47 incident cases of chlamydia diagnosed and 1,056.34 person years of follow up with a rate of 4.4 per 100 person years (95% CI: 3.3, 5.9). Incident infection was associated with being aged 16 to 20 years [RR = 3.7 (95%CI: 1.9, 7.1)], being employed [RR = 2.4 (95%CI: 1.1, 4.9)] and having two or more new sex partners [RR = 5.5 (95%CI: 2.6, 11.7)]. Recent antibiotic use was associated with a reduced incidence [RR:0.1 (95%CI: 0.0, 0.5)]. There were 14 re-infections with a rate of 22.3 per 100 person years (95%CI: 13.2, 37.6). The median time to re-infection was 4.6 months. Organism load was higher for prevalent than incident infections (p<0.01) and for prevalent than re-infections (p<0.01).ConclusionsChlamydia is common among young women and a high proportion of women are re-infected within a short period of time, highlighting the need for effective partner treatment and repeat testing. The difference in organism load between prevalent and incident infections suggests prevalent infection may be more important for ongoing transmission of chlamydia.
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.