PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Solving disparities in assessments is crucial to a successful surgical training programme. The first step in levelling these inequalities is recognising in what contexts they occur, and what protected characteristics are potentially implicated.
METHODS: This scoping review was based on Arksey & O\'Malley\'s guiding principles. OVID and Embase were used to identify articles, which were then screened by three reviewers.
RESULTS: From an initial 358 articles, 53 reported on the presence of differential attainment in postgraduate surgical assessments. The majority were quantitative studies (77.4%), using retrospective designs. 11.3% were qualitative. Differential attainment affects a varied range of protected characteristics. The characteristics most likely to be investigated were gender (85%), ethnicity (37%) and socioeconomic background (7.5%). Evidence of inequalities are present in many types of assessment, including: academic achievements, assessments of progression in training, workplace-based assessments, logs of surgical experience and tests of technical skills.
CONCLUSIONS: Attainment gaps have been demonstrated in many types of assessment, including supposedly \"objective\" written assessments and at revalidation. Further research is necessary to delineate the most effective methods to eliminate bias in higher surgical training. Surgical curriculum providers should be informed by the available literature on inequalities in surgical training, as well as other neighbouring specialties such as medicine or general practice, when designing assessments and considering how to mitigate for potential causes of differential attainment.
METHODS: This scoping review was based on Arksey & O\'Malley\'s guiding principles. OVID and Embase were used to identify articles, which were then screened by three reviewers.
RESULTS: From an initial 358 articles, 53 reported on the presence of differential attainment in postgraduate surgical assessments. The majority were quantitative studies (77.4%), using retrospective designs. 11.3% were qualitative. Differential attainment affects a varied range of protected characteristics. The characteristics most likely to be investigated were gender (85%), ethnicity (37%) and socioeconomic background (7.5%). Evidence of inequalities are present in many types of assessment, including: academic achievements, assessments of progression in training, workplace-based assessments, logs of surgical experience and tests of technical skills.
CONCLUSIONS: Attainment gaps have been demonstrated in many types of assessment, including supposedly \"objective\" written assessments and at revalidation. Further research is necessary to delineate the most effective methods to eliminate bias in higher surgical training. Surgical curriculum providers should be informed by the available literature on inequalities in surgical training, as well as other neighbouring specialties such as medicine or general practice, when designing assessments and considering how to mitigate for potential causes of differential attainment.
摘要：
背景：解决评估中的差异对于成功的手术训练计划至关重要。消除这些不平等的第一步是认识到它们在什么情况下发生，以及可能涉及哪些受保护的特征。
方法：本范围审查基于Arksey&O\'Malley的指导原则。OVID和Embase用于识别文章，然后由三名审稿人筛选。
结果：从最初的358篇文章中，53报告了研究生外科评估中存在不同的成就。大多数是定量研究（77.4%），使用回顾性设计。11.3%为定性。差异达到会影响受保护特性的变化范围。最有可能被调查的特征是性别(85%)，种族（37％）和社会经济背景（7.5％）。不平等的证据存在于许多类型的评估中，包括:学术成就,对培训进展的评估，基于工作场所的评估，手术经验日志和技术技能测试。
结论：已在许多类型的评估中证明了成就差距，包括所谓的“客观”书面评估和重新验证。需要进一步的研究来描绘最有效的方法，以消除高级手术训练中的偏见。外科课程提供者应了解有关外科培训不平等的现有文献，以及其他邻近的专业，如医学或全科医学，在设计评估和考虑如何减轻差异获得的潜在原因时。
方法：本范围审查基于Arksey&O\'Malley的指导原则。OVID和Embase用于识别文章，然后由三名审稿人筛选。
结果：从最初的358篇文章中，53报告了研究生外科评估中存在不同的成就。大多数是定量研究（77.4%），使用回顾性设计。11.3%为定性。差异达到会影响受保护特性的变化范围。最有可能被调查的特征是性别(85%)，种族（37％）和社会经济背景（7.5％）。不平等的证据存在于许多类型的评估中，包括:学术成就,对培训进展的评估，基于工作场所的评估，手术经验日志和技术技能测试。
结论：已在许多类型的评估中证明了成就差距，包括所谓的“客观”书面评估和重新验证。需要进一步的研究来描绘最有效的方法，以消除高级手术训练中的偏见。外科课程提供者应了解有关外科培训不平等的现有文献，以及其他邻近的专业，如医学或全科医学，在设计评估和考虑如何减轻差异获得的潜在原因时。
