Developing a shared understanding of humanism: Protocol for critical review, empirical exploration and modified e-Delphi study. (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Humanism is central to the practice of health care professionals but remains poorly defined and inconsistently applied. Amid growing system pressures and dehumanization, this study aims to develop consensus-based conceptual and operational definitions of humanism to support education, evaluation, practice, and policy. OBJECTIVE This study aims to formulate consensus-based conceptual and operational definitions of humanism in health care, based on the integration of theoretical perspectives with the experiences and expertise of clinician-educators, students, and members of the public. METHODS A 2-phase mixed methods design was implemented to ensure methodological rigor and analytical depth. In phase I, a critical review of the literature was conducted and systematically analyzed using content analysis. Concurrently, focus groups were conducted with learners, clinician-educators, and members of the public. The resulting qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis to capture both the theoretical and experiential dimensions of humanism in health care. Phase 2 will involve a modified e-Delphi technique, in which the generated statements will be submitted to an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral panel of experts for iterative refinement and validation. This approach is intended to strengthen construct validity and support consensus building. RESULTS This project is funded by the Research Chair in Compassion Science at the Université de Sherbrooke, with additional support from the Office of Social Accountability. The study is currently progressing through phase 1. In step 1 (critical literature review), the initial screening of studies based on titles and abstracts has been completed, and full-text screening is nearing completion. To date, 51 studies have been selected, and data extraction and analysis are underway. In step 2, analysis of data collected from 3 focus groups (N=18) has been completed. The process of converting critical review and focus group findings into Delphi statements is expected to be completed by the end of summer 2026. Phase 2 will consist of a modified e-Delphi process. The launch of this phase, involving the submission of the developed statements to an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral panel of experts, is scheduled for fall 2026. CONCLUSIONS This study is expected to contribute to the development of a conceptually grounded and operationally relevant definition of humanism in health care, informed by both theoretical foundations and lived experiences. This process will support the harmonization of educational practices, the development of assessment tools, and the integration of humanistic values into health policy. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/86055
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,210 | 0,276 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,056 | 0,016 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».