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).
METHODS: The study from March 2016 to April 2017 was conducted to validate the 'Work Readiness Scale' (WRS; Deakin University) using Principal Component Analysis and Cronbach - α for internal consistency. It was modified to a four-item even-point scale and distributed as an online survey to 335 final year students of the three programs.
RESULTS: A reduction from 64 to 53 items provided good internal consistency in all factors: WC 0.85, OA 0.88, SI 0.88 and PC 0.71. The PC domain had the greatest item reduction from 22 to 6, whilst the SI domain increased in items from 8 to 19. These changes may be associated with difference in understanding or interpretation of the items in the SI domain.
CONCLUSION: The modified WRS can be used to evaluate job readiness in HP graduates. However, it needs further refinement and validation in specific educational and employment contexts.
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: This research utilised two methods of qualitative research (document review and focus group discussions (FGDs) involving 25 participants from four stakeholders (higher education providers, employers, associations and regulatory bodies). Both deductive and inductive thematic content analysis were used to explore, develop and define emergent codes, examined along with existing knowledge on the subject matter.
RESULTS: Sixteen codes emerged from the FGDs, with risk of harm, set of competency and skills, formal qualification, defined scope of practice, relevant training and professional working within the healthcare team being the six most frequent codes. The frequencies for these six codes were 62, 46, 40, 37, 36 and 18, correspondingly. The risk of harm towards patients was directly or indirectly involved with patient handling and also relates to the potential harms that may implicate the practitioners themselves in performing their responsibilities as the important criterion highlighted in the present research, followed by set of competency and skills.
CONCLUSIONS: For defining the PAH in Malaysia, the emerged criteria appear interrelated and co-exist in milieu, especially for the risk of harm and set of competency and skills, with no single criterion that can define PAH fully. Hence, the integration of all the empirically identified criteria must be considered to adequately define the PAH. As such, the findings must be duly considered by policymakers in performing suitable consolidation of healthcare governance to formulate the appropriate regulations and policies for promoting the enhanced framework of allied health practitioners in Malaysia.
METHOD: The submitted self-reports on a pedagogical intervention of 92 out of 190 health professions educators who participated in a mandatory teaching and learning training programme, were analysed by a mixed-method approach guided by a structured conceptual framework.
RESULTS: Overall 93.4% reported the successful transfer of learning. Participants incorporated sustainable changed practice (level A, 57.6%), showed reflection on the impact of changed practice (level B, 21.7%), and performed effect analysis (level C, 14.1%). The rest planned application of learning (level D, 4.4%) and identified gaps in current practice or developed an idea for educational intervention but did not implement (level E, 2.2%).
CONCLUSION: The majority of participants transferred their learning. Faculty development programmes must ensure successful transfer of knowledge, skills, and confidence from the training to educational practice to ensure sustainable development of teaching and learning practices.