PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: \"Student engagement\" (SE) is gaining momentum as an approach to improve the performance of health professions education (HPE). Nevertheless, despite the broad studies about the role of students in various areas, little is known about the role of SE in policy and decision-making activities. This study aimed to map SE in policy and decision-making regarding terms and definitions, engagement models, influencing factors, outcomes and achievements, and the interconnection between the influencing factors.
METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and ERIC) were systematically searched from Jan 1, 1990, to Nov 12, 2022. The review was followed according to the Arksey and O\'Malley framework for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We included articles published in English focusing on HPE policy and decision-making. The authors summarized and synthesized the findings into themes, subthemes, tables, and models.
RESULTS: Of the 22 articles included in the full-text review, terms and definitions were tabled, and three themes were extracted: 1. models of SE, in which 10 studies (45.5%) presented the highly structured formal models as Organizations, 5 studies (22.7%) reported less-structured community and group as Programs, and 7 studies (31.8%) engaged students only in surveys or interviews as Perspective; 2. Factors influencing SE, that were categorized into 7 subthemes: structural, environmental, and motivational factors, member characteristics, training and mentoring, member relationships, valuing and recognizing. 3. Outcomes and achievements of SE related to systems and members. The interconnection between influencing factors is also demonstrated as a conceptual model.
CONCLUSIONS: There are various SE models in HPE policy and decision-making, which are mapped and categorized depending on the degree of formality, structuredness, and level of engagement. In our study, three more common SE models in HPE policy and decision-making were investigated. Additionally, these collaborative methods emphasized curriculum development and quality assurance and employed students in these activities. It is worth mentioning that to make SE models more efficient and sustainable, several influencing factors and their interconnections should be considered.
METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and ERIC) were systematically searched from Jan 1, 1990, to Nov 12, 2022. The review was followed according to the Arksey and O\'Malley framework for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We included articles published in English focusing on HPE policy and decision-making. The authors summarized and synthesized the findings into themes, subthemes, tables, and models.
RESULTS: Of the 22 articles included in the full-text review, terms and definitions were tabled, and three themes were extracted: 1. models of SE, in which 10 studies (45.5%) presented the highly structured formal models as Organizations, 5 studies (22.7%) reported less-structured community and group as Programs, and 7 studies (31.8%) engaged students only in surveys or interviews as Perspective; 2. Factors influencing SE, that were categorized into 7 subthemes: structural, environmental, and motivational factors, member characteristics, training and mentoring, member relationships, valuing and recognizing. 3. Outcomes and achievements of SE related to systems and members. The interconnection between influencing factors is also demonstrated as a conceptual model.
CONCLUSIONS: There are various SE models in HPE policy and decision-making, which are mapped and categorized depending on the degree of formality, structuredness, and level of engagement. In our study, three more common SE models in HPE policy and decision-making were investigated. Additionally, these collaborative methods emphasized curriculum development and quality assurance and employed students in these activities. It is worth mentioning that to make SE models more efficient and sustainable, several influencing factors and their interconnections should be considered.
摘要：
背景：“学生参与”（SE）作为提高卫生专业教育（HPE）绩效的一种方法，正在获得动力。然而，尽管对学生在各个领域的作用进行了广泛的研究，对SE在政策和决策活动中的作用知之甚少。本研究旨在绘制关于术语和定义的政策和决策中的SE图，参与模式，影响因素，成果和成就，以及影响因素之间的相互联系。
方法：五个数据库(PubMed，Scopus,ProQuest,WebofScience,和ERIC)从1990年1月1日至2022年11月12日进行了系统搜索。根据Arksey和O\'Malley范围审查框架进行审查，并根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行报告。我们收录了以英文发表的有关HPE政策和决策的文章。作者总结并将研究结果综合为主题，次主题，tables,和模型。
结果：在全文回顾的22篇文章中，术语和定义已经列出，并提取了三个主题:1.SE的模型，其中10项研究(45.5%)提出了高度结构化的正式模型作为组织，5项研究(22.7%)报告了结构较低的社区和团体作为项目，7项研究（31.8％）仅让学生参与调查或访谈，作为Perspective；2。影响SE的因素，分为7个子主题：结构，环境,和动机因素，成员特征,培训和指导，成员关系,重视和识别。3.SE的成果和成就与系统和成员有关。影响因素之间的相互联系也被证明是一个概念模型。
结论：在HPE政策和决策中存在各种SE模型，根据形式的程度进行映射和分类，结构性，和参与度。在我们的研究中,研究了HPE政策和决策中三个更常见的SE模型。此外,这些合作方法强调课程开发和质量保证，并雇用学生参加这些活动。值得一提的是，为了使SE模型更加高效和可持续，应考虑几个影响因素及其相互关系。
方法：五个数据库(PubMed，Scopus,ProQuest,WebofScience,和ERIC)从1990年1月1日至2022年11月12日进行了系统搜索。根据Arksey和O\'Malley范围审查框架进行审查，并根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行报告。我们收录了以英文发表的有关HPE政策和决策的文章。作者总结并将研究结果综合为主题，次主题，tables,和模型。
结果：在全文回顾的22篇文章中，术语和定义已经列出，并提取了三个主题:1.SE的模型，其中10项研究(45.5%)提出了高度结构化的正式模型作为组织，5项研究(22.7%)报告了结构较低的社区和团体作为项目，7项研究（31.8％）仅让学生参与调查或访谈，作为Perspective；2。影响SE的因素，分为7个子主题：结构，环境,和动机因素，成员特征,培训和指导，成员关系,重视和识别。3.SE的成果和成就与系统和成员有关。影响因素之间的相互联系也被证明是一个概念模型。
结论：在HPE政策和决策中存在各种SE模型，根据形式的程度进行映射和分类，结构性，和参与度。在我们的研究中,研究了HPE政策和决策中三个更常见的SE模型。此外,这些合作方法强调课程开发和质量保证，并雇用学生参加这些活动。值得一提的是，为了使SE模型更加高效和可持续，应考虑几个影响因素及其相互关系。
