Storylines of Trauma in Health Professions Education: A Critical Metanarrative Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PHENOMENON: Learners in medical education are often exposed to content and situations that might be experienced as traumatic, which in turn has both professional and personal implications. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the literature on how trauma has been conceptualized and approached within medical education, and the implications thereof. APPROACH: A metanarrative approach was adopted following the RAMESES guidelines. Searches of 7 databases conducted in January 2022 with no date limitations yielded 7,280 articles, of which 50 were identified for inclusion through purposive and theoretical sampling. An additional 5 articles were added from manual searches of reference lists. Iterative readings, interpretive and reflexive analysis, and research team discussions were performed to identify and refine metanarratives. FINDINGS: Five metanarratives were identified, including the concept of trauma, the trauma event, the person with trauma, the impact of trauma, and addressing trauma, with each metanarrative encompassing multiple dimensions. A biomedical concept of trauma predominated, with lack of conceptual clarity. Theory was not integrated or developed in the majority of articles reviewed, and context was often ambiguous. Trauma was described in myriad ways among studies. Why certain events were experienced as trauma and the context in which they took place were not well characterized. The impact of trauma was largely concentrated on harmful effects, and manifestations beyond symptoms of post-traumatic stress were often not considered. Furthermore, the dominant focus was on the individual, yet often in a circumscribed way that did not seek to understand the individual experience. In addressing trauma, recommendations were often generic, and earlier research emphasized individually-focused interventions while more recent studies have considered systemic issues. INSIGHTS: Multiple dimensions of trauma have been discussed in the medical education literature and from many conceptual standpoints, with biomedical, epidemiologic, and individualized perspectives predominating. Greater precision and clarity in defining and understanding trauma is needed to advance research and theory around trauma in medical education and the associated implications for practice. Exploring trauma from intersectional and collective experiences and impacts of trauma and adapting responses to individual needs offers ways to deepen our understanding of how to better support learners impacted by trauma.
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 | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| 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 ».