Interventions for undergraduate and postgraduate medical learners with academic difficulties : A BEME systematic review : BEME Guide No. 56

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLacasse, Miriam-
dc.contributor.authorAudétat, Marie-Claude-
dc.contributor.authorBoileau, Élisabeth-
dc.contributor.authorCaire Fon, Nathalie-
dc.contributor.authorDufour, Marie-Hélène-
dc.contributor.authorLaferrière, Marie-Claude-
dc.contributor.authorLafleur, Alexandre-
dc.contributor.authorLa Rue, Ève-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Shirley-
dc.contributor.authorNendaz, Mathieu-
dc.contributor.authorPaquette Raynard, Emmanuelle-
dc.contributor.authorSimard, Caroline-
dc.contributor.authorSteinert, Yvonne-
dc.contributor.authorThéorêt, Johanne-
dc.description.abstractBackground:Clinical teachers often struggle to report unsatisfactory trainee performance, partly because of a lack of evi-dence-based remediation options.Objectives:To identify interventions for undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical learners experiencing academicdifficulties, link them to a theory-based framework and provide literature-based recommendations around their use.Methods:This systematic review searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, Education Source and PsycINFO (1990–2016)combining these concepts: medical education, professional competence/difficulty and educational support. Originalresearch/innovation reports describing intervention(s) for UG/PG medical learners with academic difficulties were included.Data extraction employed Michie’s Behavior Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy and program evaluation models fromStufflebeam and Kirkpatrick. Quality appraisal used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The authors synthesizedextracted evidence by adapting the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations.Results:Sixty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria, most commonly addressing knowledge (66.2%), skills (53.9%) and atti-tudinal problems (26.2%), or learner personal issues (41.5%). The most common BCTs wereShaping knowledge,Feedback/monitoring, andRepetition/substitution. Quality appraisal was variable (MMAT 0–100%). A thematic content analysis identified109 interventions (UG:n¼84, PG:n¼58), providing 24 strong, 48 moderate, 26 weak and 11 very weak recommendations.Conclusion:This review provides a repertoire of literature-based interventions for teaching/learning, faculty development,and research
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis Health Sciences Informa Healthcarefr
dc.titleInterventions for undergraduate and postgraduate medical learners with academic difficulties : A BEME systematic review : BEME Guide No. 56fr
dc.typeCOAR1_1::Texte::Périodique::Revue::Contribution à un journal::Article::Article de recherchefr
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMedical Teacher, Vol. 41 (9), 981-1001 (2019)fr
dc.subject.rvmEnseignement médicalfr
dc.subject.rvmMédecine -- Étude et enseignementfr
dc.subject.rvmJeunes en difficulté d'apprentissagefr
dc.subject.rvmÉtudiants de premier cyclefr
dc.subject.rvmÉtudiants diplômésfr
dc.subject.rvmPlans d'intervention (Éducation)fr
rioxxterms.versionAccepted Manuscriptfr
rioxxterms.project.funder_nameChair of Educational Leadership in Health Sciences Educationfr
rioxxterms.project.funder_nameFonds Gilles-Cormier, Faculté de médecine, Université Lavalfr
Collection:Articles publiés dans des revues avec comité de lecture

All documents in CorpusUL are protected by Copyright Act of Canada.