Geriatric Educational Interventions for Physicians Training in Non-Geriatric Specialties: A Scoping Review.
| Autor: | Ong EY; is a Master's Student, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, and Consultant Geriatrician and Student Geriatric Education Lead, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Eastern Health, VIC, Australia., Bower KJ; is a Lecturer, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia., Ng L; is Deputy Director, Royal Melbourne Hospital Clinical School, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, and Supervisor, Intern Training and Rehabilitation Physicians, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, VIC, Australia. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | Journal of graduate medical education [J Grad Med Educ] 2021 Oct; Vol. 13 (5), pp. 654-665. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Oct 15. |
| DOI: | 10.4300/JGME-D-20-01484.1 |
| Abstrakt: | Background: Physicians require the expertise to care for an increasingly aging population. A robust understanding of geriatric educational interventions is needed to improve geriatric training for physicians. Objective: To map the breadth of geriatric educational interventions for residents (in non-geriatric specialties). Methods: We used a scoping review methodology. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, EMCare, CENTRAL, ERIC, and Scopus from 2004 to September 2019 for search terms related to "educational approaches" AND "geriatric" AND "residents." Two authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data (categorized by educational approaches and Kirkpatrick level outcomes), and critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: There were 63 included studies, with a total of 6976 participants. Twelve studies had comparators, including 5 randomized controlled trials. Fifty-three studies (84%) described multicomponent interventions, incorporating combinations of didactic or self-directed approaches with interactive, simulation, experiential, and/or group-based learning. Use of curricular process was explicitly reported in 34 studies (59%). Most studies met at least 4 of 5 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool criteria. Studies commonly measured outcomes at Kirkpatrick levels 1 and 2 (reaction and learning), with 15 studies measuring performance outcomes (Kirkpatrick levels 3 and 4b). All included studies had at least one positive result. Conclusions: All educational interventions had positive outcomes; however, curriculum-informed multicomponent interventions were the most common. This scoping review demonstrates that robust methodology with comparators, longer-term designs, and use of higher-level Kirkpatrick outcome measures is possible but not commonly used. Clear direction for future research is provided. Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no competing interests. |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|