Incorporating equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) into the education and assessment of professionalism for healthcare professionals and trainees: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Current definitions of professionalism for healthcare trainees often lack equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the expectations and assessment of professionalism. While professionalism teaching is incorporated in healthcare training, equity-deserving groups still experience discrimination. This scoping review investigates the literature to understand how EDI and associated domains of cultural humility, and advocacy can be incorporated in healthcare trainees' education and assessment of professionalism. METHODS: The Arksey and O'Malley framework was applied to this scoping review. MEDLINE, Embase & PsychINFO were searched up to March 2023, with terms surrounding health professionals, professionalism, EDI, cultural humility, and advocacy. Titles and abstracts (n = 3870) and full-texts (n = 140) were independently screened by two reviewers. Articles were included if they focused on EDI, cultural humility, or advocacy among healthcare students/trainees, and had outcomes related to professionalism. Articles lacking discussion of professionalism as an outcome were excluded. Themes were generated by mutual discussion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cote et al. and Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) tools. RESULTS: 48 articles underwent thematic analysis. Studies investigated the disciplines of medicine, nursing, social work, physiotherapy, and dentistry. Most studies were qualitative in methodology (n = 23). Three themes emerged: (1) EDI-related interventions are associated with improved professionalism of healthcare trainees/workers (n = 21). Interventions employed were either an EDI-associated educational course (n = 8) or an exchange program to promote EDI competencies among trainees (n = 13). (2) Trainee definitions and perceptions of professionalism include themes related to EDI and cultural humility (n = 12). (3) Current standards of professionalism are perceived as non-inclusive towards historically-marginalized populations (n = 15). Literature investigating advocacy as it relates to professionalism is limited. CONCLUSION: This review identified that core EDI principles and its associated domains of cultural humility and advocacy are often viewed as integral to professionalism. These findings create a strong impetus to incorporate EDI principles within professionalism frameworks in healthcare education. Future research should employ standardized tools for professionalism assessment to provide more conclusive evidence. Incorporating patient perspectives of professionalism can inform actionable recommendations for fostering inclusive healthcare environments.
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 | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| 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 ».