Tobacco-Nicotine Education and Training for Health-Care Professional Students and Practitioners: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The objective of this systematic review was to investigate what education and training characteristics prepares and supports health-care professionals (HCPs) in the delivery of competent and effective care to clients who use tobacco-nicotine. Aims and Methods: A search of eight bibliographic databases for English-language peer-reviewed publications from January 2006 to March 2015. Studies were included if they met the a priori inclusion criteria, which consisted of: (1) quantitative study design and (2) focus on tobacco-nicotine education or training for HCP students and practitioners. All studies were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data from included studies were extracted for study characteristics and key outcomes then critically appraised for methodological quality. Results: Fifty-nine studies were included for narrative synthesis. Two categories emerged: (1) curriculum characteristics (n = 10) and (2) education and training interventions (n = 49). Included curriculum studies identified the following themes: content, intensity, competencies evaluation, and barriers. Study findings about education and training interventions were grouped by level of education (prelicensure, post-licensure, and faculty training), teaching modality, health discipline, and the associated HCP and client outcomes. Conclusions: This comprehensive review suggests that there is a lack of consistency in HCP tobacco-nicotine education and training characteristics. This paper provides valuable categorization of the most frequently utilized components of academic curriculum and discusses the interventions in relation to HCP and client outcomes. Gaps in the literature are highlighted, and the need for standardization of tobacco-nicotine training competencies and evaluation is discussed. Future research investigating the most effective approaches to training is needed. Implications: This systematic review summarizes existing tobacco-related curriculum components (content, intensity, competency evaluation, and barriers) and training interventions for health-care professionals worldwide and demonstrates that they are associated with positive health-care professional outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and skills) and client outcomes (quit attempts and smoking abstinence).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».