Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of interprofessional mentoring in medicine from 2000 to 2019
    Tay KT, Tan XH, Tan LHE, Vythilingam D, Chin AMC, Loh V, et al.
    J Interprof Care, 2020 12 08;35(6):927-939.
    PMID: 33290115 DOI: 10.1080/13561820.2020.1818700
    Interprofessional mentoring in palliative care sees different members of the interprofessional team providing holistic, personalised andlongitudinal mentoring support, skills training and knowledge transfer as they mentor trainees at different points along their mentoring journeys. However, gaps in practice and their risk of potential mentoring malpractice even as interprofessional mentoring use continues to grow in palliative medicine underlines the need for careful scrutiny of its characteristics and constituents in order to enhance the design, evaluation and oversight of interprofessional mentoring programmes. Hence, a systematic scoping review on prevailing accounts of interprofessional mentoring in medicine is conducted to address this gap. Using Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews and identical search strategies, 6 reviewers performed independent literature reviews of accounts of interprofessional mentoring published in 10 databases. Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis approach was adopted to evaluate across different mentoring settings. A total of 11111 abstracts were identified from 10 databases, 103 full-text articles reviewed and 14 full-text articles were thematically analysed to reveal 4 themes: characterizing, implementing, evaluating and obstacles to interprofessional mentoring. Interprofessional mentoring is founded upon a respectful and collaborative mentoring relationship that thrives despite inevitable differences in individual values, ethical perspectives at different career stages within diverse working environments. This warrants effective mentor-mentee trainings, alignment of expectations, roles and responsibilities, goals and timelines, and effective oversight of the programmes. Drawing upon the data provided, an interprofessional mentoring framework is forwarded to guide the design, evaluation and oversight of the programmes.
  2. Fulltext Assessing Professionalism in Medicine - A Scoping Review of Assessment Tools from 1990 to 2018
    Tay KT, Ng S, Hee JM, Chia EWY, Vythilingam D, Ong YT, et al.
    J Med Educ Curric Dev, 2020 10 16;7:2382120520955159.
    PMID: 33150208 DOI: 10.1177/2382120520955159
    Background: Medical professionalism enhances doctor-patient relationships and advances patient-centric care. However, despite its pivotal role, the concept of medical professionalism remains diversely understood, taught and thus poorly assessed with Singapore lacking a linguistically sensitive, context specific and culturally appropriate assessment tool. A scoping review of assessments of professionalism in medicine was thus carried out to better guide its understanding.

    Methods: Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) approach to scoping reviews was used to identify appropriate publications featured in four databases published between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2018. Seven members of the research team employed thematic analysis to evaluate the selected articles.

    Results: 3799 abstracts were identified, 138 full-text articles reviewed and 74 studies included. The two themes identified were the context-specific nature of assessments and competency-based stages in medical professionalism.

    Conclusions: Prevailing assessments of professionalism in medicine must contend with differences in setting, context and levels of professional development as these explicate variances found in existing assessment criteria and approaches. However, acknowledging the significance of context-specific competency-based stages in medical professionalism will allow the forwarding of guiding principles to aid the design of a culturally-sensitive and practical approach to assessing professionalism.

  3. Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
    Wu Y, Levis B, Daray FM, Ioannidis JPA, Patten SB, Cuijpers P, et al.
    Psychol Assess, 2023 Feb;35(2):95-114.
    PMID: 36689386 DOI: 10.1037/pas0001181
    The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links