ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health professions education research (HPE-R) must be ethically sound. Ethical review decisions and other ethical considerations should be clearly reported in journal articles to allow readers to assess the ethical soundness of the research. We explored and evaluated how ethical review decisions and ethical considerations for HPE-R are reported in health professions education (HPE) journal articles. METHODS: We identified a 1-year sample, for 2020, of eight HPE journals. We systematically assessed the reporting of ethical review and key ethical considerations in the articles in the sample. RESULTS: The search yielded 2004 articles, of which 955 articles (47.7%) were eligible and were thus assessed. Most (83.4%) of the assessed articles mentioned a review by an ethical review board (ERB). In the category 'research articles', 92% articles reported the outcome of the ethical review. In the category 'other articles' (e.g. educational case reports), reporting of ethical processes was less common (32%). Overall, the reporting of key ethical considerations was limited, although these considerations were more reported in 'research articles' compared with 'other articles'. CONCLUSIONS: ERB assessments and HPE-R approval was reported in most research articles. This finding is an improvement compared with previous evaluations of ethical research practice in HPE-R. All studies, particularly those that are exempted or not fully reviewed, should describe their key ethical considerations clearly to enable the HPE community to assess the ethical soundness. Our review revealed that the reporting of ethical considerations was limited and deserves attention from the research community.
Subject(s)
Education, Medical , Periodicals as Topic , Humans , Publications , Educational Status , Ethical ReviewABSTRACT
This work aims to understand intra- and interprofessional networks of general practitioners (GPs) and ear, nose, and throat specialists (ENT specialists), and in what manner supervisors in these specialties involve interns in their professional network to help them learn intra- and interprofessional collaboration. An egocentric social network approach was used to collect and analyze quantitative as well as qualitative data. For this, semi-structured interviews were held with ten GP and ten ENT specialists. GPs had significantly more interprofessional contacts than ENT specialists (p < .01), with no significant difference in the network sizes of both professions (p = .37). All supervisors involved interns in their (ego)network actively as well as more passively. They actively discussed how collaboration with other professionals evolved, or passively assumed that an intern would learn from observing the supervisors' network interactions. Many supervisors considered the interns' initiative essential in deciding to involve an intern in their network. Although the workplace of GPs differed notably from hospital settings where ENT specialists work, the network sizes of both were comparable. Clerkships at the general practice seemed to provide more opportunities to learn interprofessional collaboration, for example with the medical nurse. Supervisors in both specialties could involve interns more actively in their intra- and interprofessional network while interns could take more initiative to learn collaboration from their supervisors' network.