Résumés
Abstract
Background: In many domains within medical education, scholarship can have unique attributes. The accreditation standards for Canadian Continuing Professional Development (CPD) require scholarly output from each Office in Canada. However, it is unclear what scholarly outputs might be considered as CPD scholarship.
Methods: Representatives from a national cross-section of collaborators within the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) network and other national organizations assisted in this project. Collaborators participated in a 3-phase, modified Delphi study from October 31st, 2023- June 17th, 2024. The three phases included: 1) Registration and Ideation; 2) Consensus Process; 3) Group Validation.
Results: A total of 31 individuals registered as part of the consensus panel, and 29 individuals (93.5% response) completed the 3-stages of the modified Delphi. The endorsement of 18/31 types of scholarship, including novel forms such as Community Engagement, Testing/Pilot Approaches, and Advocacy Scholarship, reflects an important shift in how CPD scholarship is understood.
Discussion: In a first for our field, the results of this study comprise a consensus-based definition that defines CPD scholarship at a national scale. The results crucially inform national accreditation processes, strategic planning exercises, and overall, in expanding the types and acceptance of activities as recognized scholarly work for those seeking recognition and promotion within the domain of CPD. We do so with the voice of our community to inspire new and emergent scholarship. Periodic reviews of these concepts should be conducted, as scholarly pursuits evolve over time.
Résumé
Contexte : Dans de nombreux domaines de l'enseignement médical, la recherche peut présenter des caractéristiques uniques. Les normes d'accréditation du développement professionnel continu (DPC) canadien exigent que chaque bureau au Canada produise des travaux de recherche. Cependant, on ne sait pas exactement quels travaux de recherche peuvent être considérés comme relevant du DPC.
Méthodes : Des représentants d'un échantillon représentatif de collaborateurs du réseau de développement professionnel continu (DPC) de l'Association des facultés de médecine du Canada (AFMC) et d'autres organisations nationales ont participé à ce projet. Les collaborateurs ont pris part à une étude Delphi modifiée en trois phases, qui s'est déroulée du 31 octobre 2023 au 17 juin 2024. Les trois phases comprenaient : 1) l'inscription et la conceptualisation ; 2) le processus de consensus ; 3) la validation par le groupe.
Résultats : Au total, 31 personnes se sont inscrites au panel de consensus et 29 personnes (93,5 % de réponse) ont terminé les trois étapes de l'étude Delphi modifiée. L'approbation de 18 des 31 types d’érudition, y compris des formes novatrices telles que l'engagement communautaire, les approches pilotes/tests et les connaissances de défense des droits, reflète un changement important dans la manière dont les savoirs de DPC sont compris
Discussion : Pour la première fois dans notre domaine, les résultats de cette étude constituent une définition consensuelle qui définit la recherche du DPC à l'échelle nationale. Ces résultats fournissent des informations cruciales pour les processus d'accréditation nationaux, les exercices de planification stratégique et, de manière générale, pour élargir les types et l'acceptation des activités reconnues comme travaux universitaires pour ceux qui cherchent à être reconnus et promus dans le domaine du DPC. Nous le faisons avec la voix de notre communauté afin d'inspirer de nouvelles études et des découvertes. Ces concepts doivent faire l'objet de révisions périodiques, car les activités universitaires évoluent avec le temps.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- CACME. Canadian accreditation standards for continuing professional development (CPD) provider organizations. 2023.
- Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. ERIC; 1990.
- Glassick CE. Boyer's expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Acad Med. Sep 2000;75(9):877-80. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200009000-00007
- Gusic ME, Baldwin CD, Chandran L, et al. Evaluating educators using a novel toolbox: applying rigorous criteria flexibly across institutions. Acad Med. Jul 2014;89(7):1006-11. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000233
- Helton MR, Pathman DE. Scholarship Criteria for Promotion in the Age of Diverse Faculty Roles and Digital Media. Fam Med. Sep 2023;55(8):544-546. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2023.554380
- Husain A, Repanshek Z, Singh M, et al. Consensus guidelines for digital scholarship in academic promotion. West J Emerg Med. Jul 8 2020;21(4):883-891. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2020.4.46441
- Johng SY, Mishori R, Korostyshevskiy VR. Social media, digital scholarship, and academic promotion in US medical schools.
- Milner RJ, Flotte TR, Thorndyke LE. Defining Scholarship for Today and Tomorrow. J Cont Educ Health Prof. 2022;Publish Ah(2):133-138. https://doi.org/10.1097/ceh.0000000000000473
- Law M, Wright S, Mylopoulos M. Exploring community faculty members' engagement in educational scholarship. Can Fam Physician. Sep 2016;62(9):e524-30.
- Sandmann LR. Building and bridging: reflections of an engaged scholar. practical wisdom for conducting research on service learning. Routledge; 129-145. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003446392-11
- Meurer LN, Diehr S. Community-engaged scholarship: meeting scholarly project requirements while advancing community health. J Grad Med Educ. 2012 Sep;4(3) https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00164.1
- Van Melle E, Lockyer J, Curran V et al. Toward a common understanding: supporting and promoting education scholarship for medical school faculty. Med Educ. Dec 2014;48(12):1190-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12543
- Jordan C GS, Seifer SD, et al. How to earn tenure while doing community-engaged scholarship. Morgridge Center for Public Service, University of Wisconsin. Published 2017. Available from https://morgridge.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/06/How-to-earn-tenure-while-doing-community-engaged-scholarship-.pdf. [Accessed Feb 5, 2024].
- YouTube. Resources for community engaged scholarship at duke [Video]. YouTube. Published Jul 23, 2020. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uYGKTCX-pg [Accessed Feb 21, 2024].
- Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Gonsalves C, Wood TJ. Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and nominal group in medical education research(). Med Teach. Jan 2017;39(1):14-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2017.1245856
- Trevelyan EG, Robinson PN. Delphi methodology in health research: how to do it? Euro J Integr Med. 2015 Aug;2015;7(4):423-428. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2015.07.002
- Nasa P, Jain R, Juneja D. Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World J Methodol. Jul 20 2021;11(4):116-129. https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116
- Chan TM, Yarris LM, Humphrey-Murto S. Delving into Delphis. CJEM. Mar 2019;21(2):167-169. https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2019.3
- Irby DM, O'Sullivan PS. Developing and rewarding teachers as educators and scholars: remarkable progress and daunting challenges. Med Educ. Jan 2018;52(1):58-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13379
- Maldonado G, Smart J, Wiechmann W, et al. Frequency of social media and digital scholarship keywords in US medical schools’ promotion and tenure guidelines. Acad Med. 2022;97(1):105-110. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004324
- Fitzgerald JJ, Losee JE, Roth RN, Pettigrew C, Thamman R. A worksheet to quantify social and digital media content as scholarly products for academic promotion. Acad Med 2023:10-1097. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005628
- Burton JH, Chan TM, Kuehl DR. On lampposts, sneetches, and stars: a call to go beyond bibliometrics for determining academic value. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26(6) https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13707
- Bell M, Lewis N, Jr. Universities claim to value community-engaged scholarship: so why do they discourage it? Public Underst Sci. Apr 2023;32(3):304-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221118779
- Boyer EL. The scholarship of engagement. Building the field of higher education engagement. Routledge; 2016:15-25. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003443353-2
- Richards L, Montgomery S, Bradford J. Reconceptualising the conference: An imaginative, inclusive and innovative approach to CPD in the digital age. Narratives of innovation and resilience: Supporting student learning experiences in challenging times. 2021:86.
- Hafferty FW. academic medicine and medical professionalism: a legacy and a portal into an evolving field of educational scholarship. Acad Med. Apr 2018;93(4):532-536. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001899
- Ackerman-Barger K, Bakerjian D, Latimore D. How health professions educators can mitigate underrepresented students' experiences of marginalization. J Best Pract Health Prof Divers. 2015;8(2):1060-1070.
- Barker D. The scholarship of engagement: a taxonomy of five emerging practices. J High Educ Outreach Engagem. 2004;9(2):123-137.
- Nerlinger AL, Shah AN, Beck AF, et al. The advocacy portfolio: a standardized tool for documenting physician advocacy. Acad Med. 2018;93(6):860-868. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002122
- McMahon GT. Learning Together: Engaging Patients as Partners in CPD. J Contin Educ Health Prof. Oct 1 2021;41(4):268-272. https://doi.org/10.1097/ceh.0000000000000388
- Kirkpatrick J. An introduction to the new world Kirkpatrick model. Kirkpatrick Partners. 2015;10:9781580468619. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781580468619
- Liblik K, Desai V, Yin G, et al. Professional development in health sciences: scoping review on equity, diversity, inclusion, indigeneity, and accessibility interventions. J Cont Educ Health Prof. 2022:10-1097.
- Chang A, Karani R, Dhaliwal G. Mission critical: reimagining promotion for clinician-educators. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38(3):789-792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07969-5