Methods: A literature search was carried out through Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, and EBSCOhost databases based on specific search terms. Each article was appraised based on title, abstract, and full text. The selected articles were critically appraised, and relevant information to support the validity of MMI in various educational settings was synthesized. This paper followed the PRISMA guideline to ensure consistency in reporting systematic review results.
Results: A majority of the studies were from Canada, with 41.54%, followed by the United Kingdom (25.39%), the United States (13.85%), and Australia (9.23%). The rest (9.24%) were from Germany, Ireland, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Malaysia. Moreover, most MMI stations ranged from seven to 12 with a duration of 10 min per station (including a 2-min gap between stations).
Conclusion: The results suggest that the content, response process, and internal structure of MMI were well supported by evidence; however, the relation and consequences of MMI to important outcome variables were inconsistently supported. The evidence shows that MMI is a non-biased, practical, feasible, reliable, and content-valid admission tool. However, further research on its impact on non-cognitive outcomes is required.
METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 362 mothers and mothers-to-be (mean age: 31.9 ± 4.9 years, range: 20-48 years old) recruited from Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in Cheras, Kuala Lumpur and two health clinics in Lenggeng, Negeri Sembilan and Beranang, Selangor representing the urban and rural areas respectively. All participants were interviewed in person using a newly developed and reliable questionnaire that tested their knowledge and attitude on childhood hearing loss.
RESULTS: Generally, the majority of mothers had a moderate level of knowledge and positive attitude towards childhood hearing loss. Urban mothers had a significantly higher knowledge than those of the rural area (p
METHODS: We conducted mixed focus groups (FGs) with faculty members from medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nutrition and dietetics, nursing, chiropractic, Chinese medicine, and other health sciences programmes; who were involved in the planning of IPE at institutional or programme level, or who participated in IPE activity. Transcripts were analysed using grounded theory.
RESULTS: We identified 25 barriers and facilitators, clustered under five major categories of commitment, faculty engagement, IPE design, support, and delivery.
CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of IPE may hinge on actions in 5 stages; commitment, faculty engagement, IPE design, support, and delivery. The processes will require consistent leadership to break down professional silos and enhance collaborative effort in IPE implementation.
METHODS: We followed the guidelines suggested by Whetten for constructing a theoretical model for framework development. There were four phases in the model development. In the first phase, different literature review methods were used, and additional students' perspectives were collected through focus group discussions. Then, using the data, we constructed the theoretical model in the second phase. In the third phase, we validated the newly developed model and its related guidelines. Finally, we performed response process validation of the model with a group of medical teachers.
RESULTS: The developed systematic assessment resilience framework (SAR) promotes four constructs: self-control, management, engagement, and growth, through five phases of assessment: assessment experience, assessment direction, assessment preparation, examiner focus, and student reflection. Each phase contains a number of practical guidelines to promote resilience. We rigorously triangulated each approach with its theoretical foundations and evaluated it on the basis of its content and process. The model showed high levels of content and face validity.
CONCLUSIONS: The SAR model offers a novel guideline for fostering resilience through assessment planning and practice. It includes a number of attainable and practical guidelines for enhancing resilience. In addition, it opens a new horizon for HPE students' future use of this framework in the new normal condition (post COVID 19).