Affronter des enjeux clés liés à l’évaluation du rôle de promoteur de la santé
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.73878Résumé
Introduction : Bien que le référentiel CanMEDS établisse les normes en matière de formation et de pratique médicale au Canada, la compétence de promotion de la santé (PS) ne semble pas peser lourd aux étapes décisives du continuum de la formation médicale. En l’absence de facteurs incitatifs, les programmes de formation sont peu enclins à intégrer des pratiques solides d’enseignement et d’évaluation en matière de PS. Un système de soins de santé marqué par l’iniquité appelle pourtant des efforts de sensibilisation. En adoptant le référentiel CanMEDS, le milieu canadien de l’éducation médicale a reconnu que la PS est nécessaire à la pratique compétente de la médecine. Il est temps que cet engagement soit traduit en actions concrètes.
Méthodes : Employant une méthode d’analyse critique, nous avons examiné les écrits qui peuvent éclairer les obstacles à l’évaluation sérieuse de la PS et avons formulé des recommandations. L’examen a été effectué de manière itérative en cinq étapes : définition de la question de recherche, recherche documentaire, évaluation et sélection des sources, et analyse des résultats.
Résultats : L’amélioration de la formation en matière de PS suppose, entre autres, que le milieu de l’éducation médicale s’attèle aux enjeux clés suivants : 1) l’élaborer une vision commune de la PS, 2) concevoir, mettre en œuvre et intégrer des programmes d’études évolutifs et 3) considérer les répercussions éthiques de l’évaluation d’un rôle qui comporte une part de risque.
Conclusion : Le manque de visibilité et d’attention accordées à la PS dans la formation amène de nombreux apprenants à se demander si leur compétence en la matière compte vraiment. Nous estimons que la promotion de la santé est au cœur des soins centrés sur le patient. Nous lançons donc un appel à redoubler nos efforts collectifs pour faire passer la PS du statut de simple aspiration et de valeur théorique à celui d’une valeur ayant une pertinence et des incidences concrètes.
Statistiques
Références
Hubinette MM, LaDonna KA, Scott I, van der Goes T, Kahlke R. When I say…health advocacy. Med Educ. 2022;56(4):362–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14728.
Frank JR, Snell LS, Sherbino J, eds. CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework. Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. 2015:11-12. http://canmeds.royalcollege.ca/en/framework
Shaw E, Oandasan I, Fowler N, eds. CanMEDS-FM 2017: A Competency Framework for Family Physicians across the Continuum. Mississauga, Canada; 2017. https://www.cfpc.ca/CFPC/media/Resources/Medical-Education/CanMEDS-Family-Medicine-2017-ENG.pdf
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Common Program Requirements. Effective July 1, 2013; 2013. http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs2013.pdf.
Chou S, Cole G, McLaughlin K, Lockyer J. CanMEDS evaluation in Canadian postgraduate training programmes: Tools used and programme director satisfaction. Med Educ. 2008;42(9):879-886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03111.x
Hakim J, Black A, Gruslin A, Fleming N. Are Canadian postgraduate training programs meeting the health advocacy needs of obstetrics and gynaecology residents? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(6):539-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30913-0
Binnendyk J, Pack R, Field E, Watling C. Not wanted on the voyage: Highlighting intrinsic CanMEDS gaps in Competence by Design curricula. Can Med Educ J. 2021;12(4):39–47. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.70950
Stutsky BJ, Singer M, Renaud R. Determining the weighting and relative importance of CanMEDS roles and competencies. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5(1):354. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-354
LaDonna KA, Watling CJ, Cristancho SM, Burm S. Exploring patients’ and physicians’ perspectives about competent health advocacy. Med Educ. 2021;55(4):486–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14408
Hubinette MM, Scott I, van der Goes T, Kahlke R. Learner conceptions of health advocacy: ‘Going above & beyond’ or ‘kind of an expectation.’ Med Educ. 2021;55(8):933–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14526
Hubinette MM, Ajjawi R, Dharamsi S. Family physician preceptors’ conceptualizations of health advocacy: Implications for medical education. Acad Med. 2014;89(11):1502–1509. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000479
Arya N. Advocacy as medical responsibility. CMAJ. 2013;185(15):1368. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.130649
Gallagher S, Little M. Doctors on values and advocacy: A Qualitative and evaluative study. Health Care Anal. 2017;25(4):370-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-016-0322-6
LaDonna KA, Field E, Watling C, Lingard L, Haddara W, Cristancho SM. Navigating complexity in team-based clinical settings. Med Educ. 2018;52(11):1125–1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13671.
Endres K, Burm S, Weiman D, et al. Navigating the uncertainty of health advocacy teaching and evaluation from the trainee's perspective. Med Teach. 2022;44(1):79-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1967905.
Medical Council of Canada. Health Advocate. 2022. Available from: https://mcc.ca/objectives/health-advocate/
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CanMEDS Guide. 2022. Available from: https://canmeds.royalcollege.ca/guide?role=HA&key-competency
Logiudice AB, Sibbald M, Monteiro S, et al. Intrinsic or invisible? An audit of CanMEDS roles in entrustable professional activities. Acad Med. 2022;97(8):1213–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004731.
Martin D, Hum S, Han M, Whitehead C. Laying the foundation: Teaching policy and advocacy to medical trainees. Med Teach. 2013;35(5):352–358. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.770453.
McDonald M, Lavelle C, Wen M, Sherbino J, Hulme J. The state of health advocacy training in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2019;53(12):1209-1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13929
Luft LM. The essential role of physician as advocate: How and why we pass it on. Can Med Educ J. 2017;8(3):e109-e116. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.36925
Norcini J, Anderson B, Bollela V, et al. Criteria for good assessment: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206-214. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.551559
Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR, Collaborators for the IC. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-682. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.500704
Scott IM. Beyond ‘driving’: the relationship between assessment, performance and learning. Med Educ. 2020;54(1):54–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13935
The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. CanMEDS 25: Ensuring value for years to come. 2022. Available from: https://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/canmeds/canmeds-25-e
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1471-1842.2009.00848.X
Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(1):1-13. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35/TABLES/2
Depraetere J, Vandeviver C, Keygnaert I, Beken T vander. The critical interpretive synthesis: an assessment of reporting practices. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2021;24(6):669-689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1799637
Kahlke R, Lee M, Eva K. Critical reviews in health professions education research. J Grad Med Educ. Forthcoming
Norman G, Eva KW. Quantitative research methods in medical education. In: T. Swanwick, ed. Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons; 2014: 349–369.
Dharamsi S, Ho A, Spadafora SM, Woollard R. The physician as health advocate: translating the quest for social responsibility into medical education and practice. Acad Med. 2011;86(9):1108-1113. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0B013E318226B43B
Earnest MA, Wong SL, Federico SG. Perspective: Physician advocacy: What is it and how do we do it? Acad Med. 2010;85(1):63-67. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181c40d40
Lax Y, Braganza S, Patel M. Three-tiered advocacy: using a longitudinal curriculum to teach pediatric residents advocacy on an individual, community, and legislative level. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019;6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120519859300
Dobson S, Voyer S, Regehr G. Perspective: Agency and activism: Rethinking health advocacy in the medical profession. Acad Med. 2012;87(9):1161-1164. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3182621c25
Meili R, Buchman S, Goel R, Woollard R. Social accountability at the macro level. Can Fam Physician. 2016;62(10):785-788.
Flynn L, Verma S. Fundamental components of a curriculum for residents in health advocacy. Med Teach. 2008;30(7): e178-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802139757
Law M, Leung P, Veinot P, Miller D, Mylopoulos M. A qualitative study of the experiences and factors that led physicians to be lifelong health advocates. Acad Med. 2016;91(10):1392-1397. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001316
Mu L, Shroff F, Dharamsi S. Inspiring health advocacy in family medicine: A qualitative study. Educ Health. 2011;24(1):1-11.
Howell BA, Kristal RB, Whitmire LR, Gentry M, Rabin TL, Rosenbaum J. A systematic review of advocacy curricula in graduate medical education. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(11):2592-2601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05184-3
Basu G, Pels RJ, Stark RL, Jain P, Bor DH, McCormick D. Training internal medicine residents in social medicine and research-based Health Advocacy: a novel, in-depth curriculum. Acad Med. 2017;92(4):515-520. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001580
Knox KE, Lehmann W, Vogelgesang J, Simpson D. Community health, advocacy, and managing populations (CHAMP) longitudinal residency education and evaluation. J Patient-Cent Res Rev. 2018;5(1):45-54. https://doi.org/10.17294/2330-0698.1580
Oandasan IF, Barker KK. Educating for advocacy: Exploring the source and substance of community-responsive physicians. Acad Med. 2003;78(10): S16-S19. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200310001-00006
Boroumand S, Stein MJ, Jay M, Shen JW, Hirsh M, Dharamsi S. Addressing the health advocate role in medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-1938-7
Kane MT. Current concerns in validity theory. J Educ Meas. 2001;38(4):319-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1745-3984.2001.TB01130.X
Kogan JR, Hess BJ, Conforti LN, Holmboe ES. What drives faculty ratings of residents’ clinical skills? The impact of faculty’s own clinical skills. Acad Med. 2010;85(10):S25-S28. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0B013E3181ED1AA3
Hubinette M, Dobson S, Voyer S, Regehr G. ‘We’ not ‘I’: health advocacy is a team sport. Med Educ. 2014;48(9):895–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12523
Heise L, Greene ME, Opper N, et al. Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms: Framing the challenges to health. Lancet. 2019;393(10189):2440-2454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30652-X
Dielissen P, Bottema B, Verdonk P, Lagro-Janssen T. Attention to gender in communication skills assessment instruments in medical education: a review. Med Educ. 2011;45(3):239-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03876.x
Mueller AS, Jenkins TM, Osborne M, Dayal A, O’Connor DM, Arora VM. Gender differences in attending physicians’ feedback to residents: a qualitative analysis. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(5):577-585. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-17-00126.1
Sabin JA, Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Rivara FP. Physicians’ implicit and explicit attitudes about race by MD race, ethnicity, and gender. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2009;20(3):896-913. https://doi.org/10.1353/HPU.0.0185
Sharda S, Dhara A, Alam F. Not neutral: Reimagining antiracism as a professional competence. CMAJ. 2021;193(3):E101-E102. https://doi.org/10.1503/CMAJ.201684
Hafferty F. Beyond curriculum reform: Confronting medicine’s hidden curriculum. Acad Med. 1998;73(4):403-407. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199804000-00013
Sukhera J, Watling CJ, Gonzalez CM. Implicit bias in health professions: From recognition to transformation. Acad Med. 2020;95(5):717-723. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003173
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Kori A LaDonna, Renate Kahlke, Ian Scott, Theresa van der Goes, Maria Hubinette 2023
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
La soumission d’un manuscrit original à la revue constitue une indication qu’il s’agit d’un travail original, qu’il n’a jamais été publié et qu’il n’est pas envisagé pour publication dans une autre revue. S’il est accepté, il sera publié en ligne et ne pourra l’être ailleurs sous la même forme, à des fins commerciales, dans quelque langue que ce soit, sans l’accord de l’éditeur.
La publication d’une recherche scientifique a pour but la diffusion de connaissances et, sous un régime sans but lucratif, ne profite financièrement ni à l’éditeur ni à l’auteur.
Les auteurs qui publient dans la Revue canadienne d’éducation médicale acceptent de publier leurs articles sous la licence Creative Commons Paternité - Pas d’utilisation commerciale, Pas de modification 4.0 Canada. Cette licence permet à quiconque de télécharger et de partager l’article à des fins non commerciales, à condition d’en attribuer le crédit aux auteurs. Pour plus de détails sur les droits que les auteurs accordent aux utilisateurs de leur travail, veuillez consulter le résumé de la licence et la licence complète.
