How the knowledge shared using social media is taken up into health professions education practice: A qualitative descriptive study.

Social media may promote knowledge sharing but what users do with the new knowledge and how it may influence practice remains to be known. This exploratory study used a social constructivist lens to understand how health professions educators and researchers integrate knowledge from social media into their respective practices. We purposively sampled health professions educators and researchers using the hashtags #MedEd, #HPE, and #HealthProfessionsEducation on Twitter/X. We obtained informed consent, conducted interviews via videoconference, and engaged in multiple cycles of deductive and inductive coding and analysis. Participants identified as educators and researchers (n = 12), as researchers (n = 1), or as educators (n = 1) from Canada (n = 8), the United States (n = 3), and Switzerland, Ireland, and China (n = 1, respectively). Eight participants actively used social media (i.e., creating/posting original content); six participants indicated passive use (i.e., reading/retweeting content). They discussed the importance of crafting a consumable message and social media identity to streamline the content shared. Social media's accessible, non-hierarchical nature may facilitate knowledge-sharing, whereas the potential spread of misinformation and technological requirements (e.g., internet access, country-specific restrictions on platforms) present barriers to uptake. Participants described using knowledge gained from social media as teaching tools, new research methodologies, new theoretical frameworks, and low-risk clinical interventions. Previous research has demonstrated how social media has empirically been used for diffusion or dissemination rather than as an active process of evidence uptake. Using knowledge translation frameworks, like the Knowledge to Action or Theoretical Domains frameworks, to inform social media-based knowledge sharing activities in health professions education is recommended.

Whose problem is it anyway? Confronting myths of 'problems' in health professions education.

INTRODUCTION: The growing interest in knowledge translation and implementation science, both in clinical practice and in health professions education (HPE), is reflected in the number of studies that have sought to address what are believed to be evidence-practice gaps. Though this effort may be intended to ensure practice improvements are better aligned with research evidence, there is a common assumption that the problems researchers explore and the answers they generate are meaningful and applicable to practitioner needs. METHODS: This Mythology paper considers the nature of problems from HPE as the focus of HPE research and the ways in which they may or may not be aligned. The authors argue that, in an applied field such as HPE, it is vital that researchers better understand how their research problems relate to practitioner needs and what the limitations on evidence uptake might be. Not only can this establish clearer paths between evidence and action, but it also requires a rethink of much of knowledge translation and implementation science thinking and practice. RESULTS: The authors explore five myths: whether everything in HPE is a problem; whether practitioner needs involve problem solving; whether practitioner problems are resolvable with sufficient evidence; whether researchers effectively target practitioner problems; and whether studies that focus on solving practitioner problems make significant contributions to the literature. CONCLUSIONS: To advance the conversation on the connections between problems and HPE research, the authors propose ways in which knowledge translation and implementation science might be approached differently.

Measurement Properties of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) and Related Measures: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory-version 4 (MPAI-4) and related measures' measurement properties and the quality of evidence supporting these results; and identify the interpretability and feasibility of the MPAI-4 and related measures. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. We searched 9 electronic databases and registries, and hand searched reference lists of included articles. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened and selected all articles. From 605 retrieved articles, 48 were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers appraised the evidence quality and rated the extracted classical test theory and Rasch results from each study. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used meta-analysis and COSMIN's approach to synthesize measurement properties evidence (insufficient, sufficient), and the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to synthesize evidence quality (very low, low, moderate, high) by diagnosis (traumatic brain injury [TBI], stroke), and setting (inpatient, outpatient). The MPAI-4 and its subscales are sufficiently comprehensible (GRADE: very low), but there is currently no other content validity evidence (relevance, comprehensiveness). The MPAI-4 and its participation index (M2PI) have sufficient interrater reliability for stroke and TBI outpatients (GRADE: moderate), whereas interrater reliability between TBI inpatients and clinicians is currently insufficient (GRADE: moderate). There is no evidence for measurement error. For stroke and TBI outpatients, the MPAI-4 and M2PI have sufficient construct validity (GRADE: high) and responsiveness (GRADE: moderate-high). For TBI inpatients, the MPAI-4 and M2PI have mixed indeterminant/sufficient construct validity and responsiveness evidence (GRADE: moderate-high). There is 1 study with mixed insufficient/sufficient evidence for each MPAI-4 adaptation (21- and 22-item MPAI, 9-item M2PI) (GRADE: low-high). CONCLUSION: Users can be most confident in using the MPAI-4 and M2PI in TBI and stroke outpatient settings. Future research is needed on reliability, measurement error, predictive validity, and content validity of the MPAI-4 and its related measures across populations and settings.

Scholarly practice in healthcare professions: findings from a scoping review.

Scholarly practitioners are broadly defined as healthcare professionals that address critical practice problems using theory, scientific evidence, and practice-based knowledge. Though scholarly practice is included in most competency frameworks, it is unclear what scholarly practice is, how it develops and how it is operationalized in clinical practice. The aim of this review was to determine what is known about scholarly practice in healthcare professionals. We conducted a scoping review and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL from inception to May 2020. We included papers that explored, described, or defined scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in healthcare professionals. We included a total of 90 papers. Thirty percent of papers contained an explicit definition of scholarly practice. Conceptualizations of scholarly practice were organized into three themes: the interdependent relationship between scholarship and practice; advancing the profession's field; and core to being a healthcare practitioner. Attributes of scholarly practitioners clustered around five themes: commitment to excellence in practice; collaborative nature; presence of virtuous characteristics; effective communication skills; and adaptive change ethos. No single unified definition of scholarly practice exists within the literature. The variability in terms used to describe scholarly practice suggests that it is an overarching concept rather than a definable entity. There are similarities between scholarly practitioners and knowledge brokers regarding attributes and how scholarly practice is operationalized. Individuals engaged in the teaching, research and/or assessment of scholarly practice should make explicit their definitions and expectations for healthcare professionals.

Social media as a mechanism of dissemination and knowledge translation among health professions educators: a scoping review.

Health professions educators often use social media to share knowledge; however, it is unclear what specific dissemination and knowledge translation (KT) processes are occurring and the implications of this sharing for health professions education (HPE). This study explored how educators have used social media as a mechanism of dissemination and KT in the literature. A critical scoping review methodology, informed by Engeström's Activity Theory, was employed. Twelve databases were searched and studies that: (a) addressed health professions educators; (b) described the use of social media for dissemination or KT; (c) focused on a regulated health profession; (d) focused on undergraduate or graduate education; and (e) were published in English or French between 2011 and 2021 were included. Data were analyzed using numerical and qualitative content analyses. Of the 4859 articles screened, 37 were eligible for inclusion. Social media may facilitate knowledge sharing in HPE, but there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what is meant by 'dissemination' and 'KT'. Who is responsible for sharing knowledge, what knowledge is being shared, and the target audiences are not always clear. Multiple factors (e.g., affordances, opportunity costs) influence how social media is used as a mechanism of dissemination, and it remains unclear whether and how it is used as a mechanism of KT. Concepts like KT and dissemination, which are often borrowed from other disciplines, must be critically evaluated for their relevance and suitability if they are to be appropriately applied to HPE and in particular to social media. Educators looking to use social media to teach students about KT should consider whether this use of technology truly aligns with their stated learning outcomes.

Creating synergies among education/research, practice, and policy environments to build capacity for the scholar role in occupational therapy and physiotherapy in the Canadian context.

Scholarly practice (SP) is considered a key competency of occupational therapy and physiotherapy. To date, the three sectors-education/research, practice, and policy/regulation-that support SP have been working relatively independently. The goals of this project were to (a) understand how representatives of the three sectors conceptualize SP; (b) define each sector's individual and collective roles in supporting SP; (c) identify factors influencing the enactment of SP and the specific needs of how best to support SP; and (d) co-develop goals and strategies to support SP across all sectors. We used interpretive description methodology. Consistent with an integrated knowledge translation approach, partners representing the three sectors across Canada recruited individuals from each sector, developed the content and questions for three focus groups, and collected and analyzed the data. Inspired by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we developed the questions for the second focus group. We analyzed the data using an inductive thematic analysis method. Thirty-nine participants from the three sectors participated. Themes related to participants' conceptualization of SP included (a) ongoing process, (b) reflective process, (c) broad concept, and (d) collective effort. Themes describing factors influencing and supporting SP were (a) recognition, (b) appropriate conceptualization, (c) social network, (d) accessibility to resources, and (e) forces outside of practitioners' effort. Goals to support SP included (a) further recognizing SP, (b) sustaining SP competency, and (c) ensuring access to information. SP requires collaborative and integrated intersectoral support and further recognition of its importance through the collaboration of multiple stakeholders.

Being and Becoming an Evidence-Based Practitioner: Occupational Therapists' Journey Toward Expertise.

IMPORTANCE: Despite mounting evidence for the management of various health care conditions, the uptake of scientific evidence in occupational therapy is often suboptimal. Although positive attitudes and self-efficacy are key to evidence-based practices (EBPs), how one becomes an evidence-based practitioner, and how expertise in EBP manifests in practice, remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe how expert evidence-based practitioners conceptualize and enact their expertise in stroke rehabilitation. DESIGN: Qualitative interpretive descriptive study using in-depth semistructured interviews with eight occupational therapists identified as expert evidence-based practitioners in a previous study. Transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic content analysis, and emergent themes were identified. SETTINGS: Rehabilitation settings across Canada. RESULTS: Six overarching themes emerged: (1) relying on personal attributes to engage in practice improvement, (2) acting on factors that motivate and trigger EBP, (3) achieving better outcomes because of engagement in EBP, (4) using an adaptive decision-making process, (5) participating in professional activities that contribute to practice improvement, and (6) working in a practice area with a large body of evidence. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Expertise in stroke rehabilitation EBP appears to be a function of several personal attributes and habits of mind in addition to being influenced by a commitment to client-centered practice. Expertise requires a combination of deliberate effort and motivation to improve client outcomes, always in a context conducive to reflection, adaptation, and openness to innovation. Experts who model these traits and articulate the processes used to develop their expertise can be viewed as promising educational and continuing professional development resources. What This Article Adds: Expert evidence-based occupational therapists develop their expertise in this domain through commitment to client-centered practice, efforts toward honing this aspect of practice, and a willingness to innovate and adapt to challenging situations.

Understanding How Newly Implemented Rehabilitation Best Practices Are Sustained: A Realist Review.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a realist review to understand how (mechanism) and in what circumstances (context) evidence-based practices are sustained in rehabilitation (outcome). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists, and targeted websites. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers calibrated study selection; then 1 reviewer screened all titles and abstracts, while the second reviewer screened a random 20%. We repeated this process for full texts. We included 115 documents representing 61 implementation projects (8.9% of identified documents). Included documents described implementation projects in which physical therapists, occupational therapists, and/or speech-language pathologists were the target users of an evidence-based practice. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers repeated the independent process described in study selection to extract basic study and sustainability characteristics as well as context, mechanism, outcome, and strategy text. DATA SYNTHESIS: Using basic numerical analyses, we found that only 54% of evidence-based practices in rehabilitation are sustained. Furthermore, while authors who reported sustainability planning sustained the practice 94% of the time, sustainability planning in rehabilitation is rare (only reported 26% of the time). Extracted text was synthesized using the realist technique of inductive and deductive retroduction in which context, mechanism, outcome, and strategy text are combined into narrative explanations of how sustainability works. To inform these explanations, we applied normalization process theory and the theory of planned behavior. Collectively, the 52 identified narratives provide evidence for 3 patterns: (1) implementation and sustainability phases are interconnected, (2) continued use of the evidence-based practice can be interpreted as the ultimate sustainability outcome, and (3) intermediate sustainability outcomes (ie, fit/alignment, financial support, benefits, expertise) can become contextual features influencing other sustainability outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation teams can use the narrative explanations generated in this review to optimize sustainability planning. This can sustain practice changes and improve quality of care and patient outcomes. Future research should seek to iteratively refine the proposed narrative explanations.

Thirty years of teaching evidence-based medicine: have we been getting it all wrong?

Evidence based medicine (EBM) has been synonymous to delivery of quality care for almost thirty years. Since the movement's inception, the assumption has been that decisions based on high quality evidence would translate to better care for patients. Despite EBM's many attractive features and the substantive attention it has received in the contemporary clinical and medical education literature, how it is defined and operationalized as a component of training is often unclear and problematic. How to practice EBM is not well articulated in the literature; therefore, it becomes difficult to teach and equally challenging to assess. In this paper, we put forward a call for deeper consideration of how EBM is taught, and for clarification on how it is defined and operationalized in medical education. In preparing this paper, we considered questions such as what it means to practice EBM, the role that medical education plays in helping realize EBM, how the teaching of EBM can change to reflect recent developments in clinical practice and education, and whether transformations in the practice of medicine necessitate a change in how we teach EBM. We end with four avenues that may be pursued to advance the teaching of EBM in medical education: (1) consensus on what we mean by EBM; (2) clear articulation of EBM-associated competencies; (3) empirically and theoretically supported means of promoting EBM competencies; (4) ways to assess both skill acquisition and use of EBM. We discuss implications for educators of EBM.

Exploring professional identity in rehabilitation professions: a scoping review.

Professional identity is believed to foster self-confidence and resilience in health care professionals. While literature exists describing professional identity in medicine, the relevance of this evidence to rehabilitation professionals (occupational therapy (OT), physical therapy (PT) and speech-language pathology (S-LP)) is limited due to differences between professions in decision-making authority (patient care), professional autonomy and understanding of their scope of practice. The objective was to determine the extent, range and nature of the literature on professional identity/professional identity formation in rehabilitation professionals. Findings from the scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework are presented. A search was conducted on MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), AMED, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses from 1996 to October 2020 for empirical and conceptual studies on OT, PT, and S-LP clinicians or students. Of 4983 retrieved records, 53 papers were selected for data extraction. Data were organised into themes for professional identity/professional identity formation: conceptual descriptors (dynamic state, multiple identities); influences (person, professional education/environments, profession-at-large). Findings are consistent with the professional identity literature in medicine. However, they point to gaps for further empirical inquiry in the role of symbols and rituals in the professional identity/professional identity formation of rehabilitation professionals, profession-specific differences between OT, PT and S-LP, and influences related to the profession-at-large on the professional identity/professional identity formation of rehabilitation professionals. These findings may help to inform professional education programs and health care and professional systems in developing resources to support professional identity formation of rehabilitation professionals.

Stakeholders' perception on the implementation of Developmental Progress Assessment: using the Theoretical Domains Framework to document behavioral determinants.

BACKGROUND: The widespread implementation of longitudinal assessment (LA) to document trainees' progression to independent practice rests more on speculative rather than evidence-based benefits. We aimed to document stakeholders' knowledge of- and attitudes towards LA, and identify how the supports and barriers can help or hinder the uptake and sustainable use of LA. METHODS: We interviewed representatives from four stakeholder groups involved in LA. The interview protocols were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which contains a total of 14 behaviour change determinants. Two team members coded the interviews deductively to the TDF, with a third resolving differences in coding. The qualitative data analysis was completed with iterative consultations and discussions with team members until consensus was achieved. Saliency analysis was used to identify dominant domains. RESULTS: Forty-one individuals participated in the study. Three dominant domains were identified. Participants perceive that LA has more positive than negative consequences and requires substantial ressources. All the elements and characteristics of LA are present in our data, with differences between stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Going forward, we could develop and implement tailored and theory driven interventions to promote a shared understanding of LA, and maintain potential positive outcomes while reducing negative ones. Furthermore, ressources to support LA implementation need to be addressed to facilitate its uptake.

Clinical Reasoning in Occupational Therapy Practice: A Scoping Review of Qualitative and Conceptual Peer-Reviewed Literature.

IMPORTANCE: The occupational therapy clinical reasoning literature includes a large proportion of peer-reviewed qualitative and conceptual articles. Although these articles can contribute to the understanding of how clinical reasoning has been conceptualized in occupational therapy, they have not yet received in-depth analytic attention. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review. OBJECTIVE: To examine how qualitative and conceptual literature has addressed clinical reasoning in occupational therapy. DATA SOURCES: Database searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase, and MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION: Included articles were published between 2010 and 2019, were peer reviewed, addressed clinical reasoning in occupational therapy, were qualitative or conceptual articles, focused on practitioners, and were in English. Twenty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted according to relevant categories and were analyzed numerically and thematically. FINDINGS: Four themes were identified: clinical reasoning processes, factors influencing clinical reasoning, new models or frameworks to guide clinical reasoning, and emergent perspectives on clinical reasoning. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This review advances knowledge about how clinical reasoning has been conceptualized in occupational therapy and has been applied in a range of practice contexts. The review highlights discussions about types of reasoning, the dynamic and iterative nature of reasoning, contextual dimensions of reasoning, client-centered and occupation-based approaches, new frameworks and models, and emergent and innovative perspectives on clinical reasoning in occupational therapy. What This Article Adds: This scoping review represents an important contribution to knowledge about how clinical reasoning has been conceptualized in occupational therapy by mapping key themes and illuminating scholarly conversations in the qualitative and conceptual clinical reasoning literature.

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. RESULTS: One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

Leveraging knowledge translation and implementation science in the pursuit of evidence informed health professions education.

Evidence informed approaches to health professions education can ensure accountability to learners and society in providing meaningful and effective education and helping resource strained systems via streamlined and cost-efficient practices. Knowledge translation and implementation science are two areas of study originally developed in clinical medicine in response to concerns that health care practices were incongruent with the scientific evidence. Two decades of research have led to important advances in our understanding of the nature and magnitude of research-practice gaps, the factors that support or impede adoption of evidence in clinical decision-making, and in the design and evaluation of theory driven interventions to reduce gaps. This paper borrows concepts from knowledge translation and implementation science to further our thinking about how health professions education can 'truly' be evidence informed. The article is organised in four sections: a discussion of the impetus for the evidence informed health professions education movement; a description of the origins of knowledge translation and implementation science; a discussion on how knowledge translation and implementation science can be leveraged to advance the evidence informed health professions education agenda; and suggestions for future discussion and research. An example is used to illustrate the application of the underpinning principles of knowledge translation and implementation science. The authors suggest a theory driven, staged and systematic approach that integrates knowledge translation principles and processes and involves key stakeholders interested in promoting the application of educational research of evidence.

Building evidence-based practice competencies among rehabilitation students: a qualitative exploration of faculty and preceptors' perspectives.

Medical education literature suggests clinically-integrated teaching may be the most effective approach to teach evidence-based practice (EBP). Before implementing this educational best practice in rehabilitation curricula, it is imperative to better understand the current context, barriers and facilitators to teach EBP in rehabilitation from the academic to the clinical setting. The aim of this study was to explore faculty and preceptors' experiences and perceptions of teaching EBP in rehabilitation professions, namely occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech-language pathology. We gathered data from seven focus groups and an individual interview with a sample of 24 faculty and 15 preceptors, i.e., clinical supervisors. Data collected were subjected to inductive thematic content analysis. We identified three overarching themes and corresponding strategies. First, "Recognizing EBP as a multifaceted concept" denoted participants' lack of consensus regarding the meaning and scope of EBP, and their awareness of such discrepancies. Second, "Complexity of EBP is at the core of teaching practices and experiences" referred to participants' perception of EBP as a complex process involving high-level cognitive skills, which influenced their teaching practices and challenged students and themselves. Third, "Connections and divides between research and practice" represented the limited and delicate connection between faculty and preceptors, the factors either bridging or maintaining the gap between them, and the impacts of such connections and divides on teaching. Improving collaboration between faculty and preceptors constitutes an essential first step towards more effective EBP training programs in rehabilitation that could be facilitated through online communities of practice or integrated knowledge translation research projects.

Exploring the professionalization of respiratory therapy in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: A recurrent challenge facing respiratory therapists (RTs) is their legitimacy as professionals. RTs are often referred to as technologists, vocationalists, or technicians and must often justify their status as full professionals rather than "professional technicians". There is currently little exploration of what it means to be a profession and the process of professionalization in respiratory therapy. APPROACH: Drawing from sociological theory, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the professionalization of respiratory therapy in Canada using Andrew Abbott's theory, the "system of professions". We will use this theory as a lens to propose areas of consideration for professional development regarding two pervasive themes in the respiratory therapy community, RTs' specialized body of knowledge and professional autonomy. FINDINGS: Abstract knowledge is believed to be essential in the evolution from occupation to profession and is valuable to a profession in three ways: it can influence the profession's legitimacy, it can be used for conducting research, and it promotes higher education. RTs possess jurisdictional professional autonomy within Canada. The privilege of self-regulation allows RTs to act according to their knowledge and judgement without direct oversight from other professions. CONCLUSION: Based on Abbott's theoretical position, RTs can rightly justify their position as professionals. However, RTs need to acknowledge that professionalization is a dynamic and continuous process that requires creative changes to innovate within the profession and support future efforts to reinforce their position as professionals. Throughout this paper, we offer suggestions for how RTs can contribute to the ongoing professionalization of respiratory therapy.

A Scoping Review of Physicians' Clinical Reasoning in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency of physicians. Yet there is a paucity of research on clinical reasoning specifically in emergency medicine, as highlighted in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine the state of research on clinical reasoning in this specialty. Our team, composed of content and methodological experts, identified 3,763 articles in the literature, 95 of which were included. RESULTS: Most studies were published after 2000. Few studies focused on the cognitive processes involved in decisionmaking (ie, clinical reasoning). Of these, many confirmed findings from the general literature on clinical reasoning; specifically, the role of both intuitive and analytic processes. We categorized factors that influence decisionmaking into contextual, patient, and physician factors. Many studies focused on decisions in regard to investigations and admission. Test ordering is influenced by physicians' experience, fear of litigation, and concerns about malpractice. Fear of litigation and malpractice also increases physicians' propensity to admit patients. Context influences reasoning but findings pertaining to specific factors, such as patient flow and workload, were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Many studies used designs such as descriptive or correlational methods, limiting the strength of findings. Many gray areas persist, in which studies are either scarce or yield conflicting results. The findings of this scoping review should encourage us to intensify research in the field of emergency physicians' clinical reasoning, particularly on the cognitive processes at play and the factors influencing them, using appropriate theoretical frameworks and more robust methods.

Lessons from the implementation of developmental progress assessment: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Educators and researchers recently implemented developmental progress assessment (DPA) in the context of competency-based education. To reap its anticipated benefits, much still remains to be understood about its implementation. In this study, we aimed to determine the nature and extent of the current evidence on DPA, in an effort to broaden our understanding of the major goals and intended outcomes of DPA as well as the lessons learned from how it has been executed in, or applied across, educational contexts. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study based on the methodology of Arksey and O'Malley. Our search strategy yielded 2494 articles. These articles were screened for inclusion and exclusion (90% agreement), and numerical and qualitative data were extracted from 56 articles based on a pre-defined set of charting categories. The thematic analysis of the qualitative data was completed with iterative consultations and discussions until consensus was achieved for the interpretation of the results. RESULTS: Tools used to document DPA include scales, milestones and portfolios. Performances were observed in clinical or standardised contexts. We identified seven major themes in our qualitative thematic analysis: (a) underlying aims of DPA; (b) sources of information; (c) barriers; (d) contextual factors that can act as barriers or facilitators to the implementation of DPA; (e) facilitators; (f) observed outcomes, and (g) documented validity evidences. CONCLUSIONS: Developmental progress assessment seems to fill a need in the training of future competent health professionals. However, moving forward with a widespread implementation of DPA, factors such as lack of access to user-friendly technology and time to observe performance may render its operationalisation burdensome in the context of competency-based medical education.

Conceptualising spaced learning in health professions education: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the definitions and applications of 'spaced learning' and to propose future directions for advancing its study and practice in health professions education. METHOD: The authors searched five online databases for articles published on spaced learning in health professions education prior to February 2018. Two researchers independently screened articles for eligibility with set inclusion criteria. They extracted and analysed key data using both quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Of the 2972 records retrieved, 120 articles were included in the review. More than 90% of these articles were published in the last 10 years. The definition of spaced learning varied widely and was often not theoretically grounded. Spaced learning was applied in distinct contexts, including online learning, simulation training and classroom settings. There was a large variety of spacing formats, ranging from dispersion of information or practice on a single day, to intervals lasting several months. Generally, spaced learning was implemented in practice or testing phases and rarely during teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Spaced learning is infrequently and poorly defined in the health professions education literature. We propose a comprehensive definition of spaced learning and emphasise that detailed descriptions of spacing formats are needed in future research to facilitate the operationalisation of spaced learning research and practice in health professions education.

Scoping reviews in health professions education: challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology.

Scoping reviews are increasingly used in health professions education to synthesize research and scholarship, and to report on the depth and breadth of the literature on a given topic. In this Perspective, we argue that the philosophical stance scholars adopt during the execution of a scoping review, including the meaning they attribute to fundamental concepts such as knowledge and evidence, influences how they gather, analyze, and interpret information obtained from a heterogeneous body of literature. We highlight the principles informing scoping reviews and outline how epistemology-the aspect of philosophy that "deals with questions involving the nature of knowledge, the justification of beliefs, and rationality"-should guide methodological considerations, toward the aim of ensuring the production of a high-quality review with defensible and appropriate conclusions. To contextualize our claims, we illustrate some of the methodological challenges we have personally encountered while executing a scoping review on clinical reasoning and reflect on how these challenges could have been reconciled through a broader understanding of the methodology's philosophical foundation. We conclude with a description of lessons we have learned that might usefully inform other scholars who are considering undertaking a scoping review in their own domains of inquiry.