The development of competency frameworks in healthcare professions: a scoping review

Batt, Alan M; Tavares, Walter; Williams, Brett

doi:10.1007/s10459-019-09946-w

Cited by 85 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

133

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We included 101 studies (See Appendix for a diagram of the inclusion process) 18‐118 . On average 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4, range 0‐42) were published annually (See Appendix ) with the most published in 2019 (n = 42; 41.6%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A single review featured one author only 111 . Lead authors were based in 16 countries with the majority in Canada (n = 31, 30.7%), 18,19,22,24,28,37,40,47,57,62,71,80,81,86,94,95,97‐100,102,103,106,108,112‐118 the United States (n = 27, 26.7%) 32,35,36,38,41‐45,48,49,52‐55,59,61,68,72‐74,77,82,91,92,104,109 and Australia (n = 9, 8.9%) 30,46,58,67,75,79,89,93,96 . In 23 reviews (22.8%), authors described their team members' backgrounds and expertise in relation to their scoping review 20‐22,27,33,34,43,44,58,60,66,67,71‐74,76,86,88,97,99,104,112 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While not all scoping reviews had available citation data, those that did (n = 89) were cited, on average, 6.4 times (SD = 11.7, median = 2, range 0‐61) 19‐23,25‐32.34‐37,39,40,44‐46,48‐58,60‐71,73‐81,83‐90,92‐118 . Eighteen articles (17.8%) had not been cited 19‐23,25,26,28‐31,37,39,45,53,54,78,88 ; of those, 10 (55.6%) 19‐23,25,26,28,37,54 were published after 2019.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were, on average, 2.6 rationales stated per review (SD = 1.4, median = 3;). The most often stated rationales were: to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77; 87.5%) 18‐28,30‐33,36,37,39,40,43‐45,48‐54,56,58‐60,65,66,68,72,74‐79,81,82,85‐93,95,96,99‐101,103‐116,118 ; to examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity in a given area (n = 74; 84.1%) 18‐22,24‐27,30‐33,35‐37,39,40,43,44,48‐54,56,59‐63,65,66,68,72,74‐79,81,82,84‐93,95,96,99‐101,103‐106,108‐116,118 ; and to contend with the nature of the study topic or available literature (n = 46; 52.3%) …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[31][32][33][34] A programmatic approach to goal setting should take into account competency as a measurement of consistency and reliability over multiple observations that establish a pattern of future predictive success. 27,35 A pragmatic personalized approach is also needed so that competent paramedic students are not repeating patient contacts, with little additional learning, to simply satisfy one-size-fits-all quantitative requirements.…”

Section: Median (Iqr) Per Studentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paramedic student encounters with patients during clinical placements: A multi‐institutional cohort study

Page

Brazelton

Kokx³

et al. 2021

JACEP Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Competency Framework for Health Research Ethics Educational Programs: Results from a Stakeholder‐Driven Mixed‐Method Process

Tackett

Sugarman

et al. 2023

Ethics & Human Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Educational programs are integral to building health research ethics (HRE) capacity, but no outcomes framework exists to guide them. We empirically developed a competency framework for health research ethics education—the Framework for Research Ethics Studies Competencies and Outcomes (FRESCO)—using mixed methods, including group concept mapping and a survey of international experts. FRESCO includes seven competency domains: (1) Foundational Knowledge; (2) Laws, Regulations, Guidelines, and Policies for Research Oversight; (3) Ethical‐Issue Identification, Analysis, and Resolution; (4) Engagement, Communication, and Advocacy; (5) Lifelong Learning, Education, Research, and Scholarship; (6) Coordination, Stewardship, and Responsiveness in HRE Systems; and (7) Impartiality, Honesty, and Responsibility. These domains are detailed in 27 subdomains. Survey respondents rated FRESCO's relevance to HRE highly. FRESCO can be adapted and implemented in educational programs to refine recruitment and selection processes, educational and assessment methods, and performance measures to ensure that HRE educational programs have their intended effects.

show abstract

The development of competency frameworks in healthcare professions: a scoping review

Cited by 85 publications

References 104 publications

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

Paramedic student encounters with patients during clinical placements: A multi‐institutional cohort study

A Competency Framework for Health Research Ethics Educational Programs: Results from a Stakeholder‐Driven Mixed‐Method Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About