Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39639306›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2024

How to evaluate lifelong learning skills of healthcare professionals: a systematic review on content and quality of instruments for measuring lifelong learning.

Monica H M Verkooijen, Anne A C van Tuijl, Hiske Calsbeek, Cornelia R M G Fluit, Petra J van Gurp

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Monica H M Verkooijen *Department of Psychiatry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. monica.verkooijen@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9139-759X
Anne A C van Tuijl *Learning and Innovation Centre, Avans University of Applied Sciences, Breda, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5515-3966
Hiske CalsbeekIQ Health Scientific Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2355-7499
Cornelia R M G FluitDepartment for Research on Learning and Education, Radboudumc Health Academy, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8714-9339
Petra J van GurpDepartment of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4983-0817

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaving lifelong learning skills is a necessity for healthcare professionals. To evaluate these skills, sound instruments are needed. Those working in healthcare of medical educating looking for a suitable instrument to evaluate lifelong learning (LLL) skills in healthcare professionals are faced with a multitude of definitions and operationalizations of the concept of LLL. A systematic review was performed to analyze the methodological quality and content of instruments measuring LLL for professionals.

methodsA systematic search of literature published until October 2023 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted. English articles describing the development, validation or use of an instrument measuring lifelong learning for professionals working in a professional context were included. A data extraction form was developed to evaluate the content and methodological quality of the instruments. The STORIES statement was used to support reporting this review.

resultsThe search revealed 85 articles on 18 questionnaires, no qualitative instruments were found. The instruments covered a range of settings, for example the Jefferson Scale of Physician LLL (JSPLL) covered healthcare and the Effective LLL Inventory (ELLI) covered education. Most instruments provided evidence on content validity and internal consistency, other aspects of validity were examined less frequently. Furthermore, the way that LLL was defined varied greatly, also great variety in the constructs that were defined in the instruments was found. Most instruments lacked a clear description of how the dimensions and items were formalized.

conclusionsThere is a need for LLL instruments that provide more evidence on their validity and put greater emphasis on the development of the definition and operationalization of LLL. Furthermore, there is a need for a better understanding of how to interpret and use the results of the instruments. It is recommended to take a critical look at these constructs before selecting an instrument. This will help all those involved in the training and working environment of healthcare professionals in evaluating lifelong learning skills in their context. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019134804.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelEducational MeasurementEducation, ContinuingHumansLearningReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesContentHealthcare professionalsInstrumentsLifelong learningMeasurement propertiesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39639306
PMCPMC11622499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.