Background
A breadth of evidence supports that academic dishonesty is prevalent among higher education students, including students in health sciences educational programs. Research suggest individuals who engage in academic dishonesty may continue to exhibit unethical behaviors in professional practice. Thus, it is imperative to appropriately address lapses in academic dishonesty among health sciences students to ensure the future safety of patients. However, students and faculty have varying perceptions of what constitutes academic dishonesty and the seriousness of breaches in academic dishonesty. The purpose of this study is to gain health sciences faculty and students’ perceptions on the appropriate consequences of lapses in academic integrity.
Methods
Faculty and students from different health care disciplines were asked to complete the anonymous survey in which 10 different academic (non-clinical) and clinical scenarios were presented. For each scenario, students or faculty needed to address their concern and assign an academic consequence that they considered appropriate (ranked from no consequence to dismissal). A mixed-effects model was used to assess the difference of questionnaire scores between subgroups. The study was completed in the Spring of 2017.
Results
A total of 185 faculty and 295 students completed the electronic survey. Across all survey questions (clinical and non-clinical), the perceived severity of the behavior predicted the consequence chosen by the respondent, indicating that both faculty and students assigned what they felt to be appropriate consequences directly based on their values and perceptions. Both faculty and students show congruence in their opinions regarding the perceived seriousness of clinical cases (
p
= 0.220) and the recommended consequences assigned to such lapses (
p
= 0.110). However, faculty and students statistically significantly disagreed in their perception of the severity of non-clinical academic dishonesty scenarios and recommended consequences (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusions
Our research supports the need for collaborative work between faculty and students in putting forth clear guidelines on how to manage and uphold rules related to lapses in academic integrity not only for non-clinical situations, but especially for clinical ones in a health care setting. Recommendations from this research include using an honor code utilized in clinical settings.
There is a need for program evaluations associated with educating healthcare professionals about the treatment of patients who use tobacco. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a Tobacco Treatment Specialist Training program with a pre-test and post-test (provided six months after the program) to determine if participants-maintained knowledge and practices to help patients with tobacco cessation in a mixed-model analysis. A pre-test survey was administered to attendees of a three-day tobacco treatment training continuing education certification program. After 6 months, the attendees were provided a post-test survey with open-ended and Likert-style questions. There were 98 participants who completed the pre-test and 16 who completed the post-test. Responses to the knowledge, confidence, and skills post-test indicated that there was significant improvement and maintenance at the six-month post-test. For example, knowledge improved from a mean of 61.1% (SD: 25.6%) to a mean of 87.9% (SD: 14.4%); medians of 66.7% and 77.7%, respectively, p < 0.001. The in-depth, intensive, three-day TTS training program had a lasting impact. Providers reported greater commitment to helping their patients quit and maintain tobacco cessation habits.
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.