BACKGROUND: Academic institutions benefit from researchers adopting leadership positions and, subsequently, leadership development programmes are of increasing importance. Despite this, no evaluation of the evidence basis for leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers has been conducted. In this study, the authors reviewed leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers and aimed to identify their impact and the factors which influenced this impact.
METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 2000 and January 2023 for evaluations of leadership development programmes with healthcare researchers. The authors synthesised results through exploratory meta-analysis and meta-aggregation and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Qualitative Studies to identify higher-reliability studies.
RESULTS: 48 studies met inclusion criteria, of which approximately half (22) met the criteria for higher reliability. The median critical appraisal score was 10.5/18 for the MERSQI and 3.5/10 for the JBI. Common causes of low study quality appraisal related to study design, data analysis and reporting. Evaluations principally consisted of questionnaires measuring self-assessed outcomes. Interventions were primarily focused on junior academics. Overall, 163/168 categorised programme outcomes were positive. Coaching, experiential learning/project work and mentoring were associated with increased organisational outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Educational methods appeared to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific educational content. To facilitate organisational outcomes, educational methods should include coaching, project work and mentoring. Programmes delivered by external faculty were less likely to be associated with organisational outcomes than those with internal or mixed faculty, but this needs further investigation. Finally, improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review sought to understand the effectiveness of lived experience mentoring, by people recovered from an eating disorder, with clinical samples currently receiving eating disorder treatment.
UNASSIGNED: The systematic review was conducted using PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global and reviewing reference lists of included papers. Articles were included if they: (1) were intervention studies that included peer (recovered from an eating disorder) involvement, (2) delivered the intervention to clinical samples (or carers with direct involvement in treatment), (3) were in English, and (4) included quantitative results.
UNASSIGNED: Eleven studies were included across randomized control trials (RCTs), case series, and a case study; there was variation in quality. Findings varied considerably with some concluding that lived experience mentoring led to significant improvements for mentees, while other studies found no significant differences. Mentor outcomes were often not evaluated. Of those that did assess mentors, there is preliminary evidence for some benefits to participation but also the potential for harm.
UNASSIGNED: There is a need for further research in this area using high-quality RCTs that address the risk of bias. It is important that lived experience peer mentors are monitored on key outcomes, provided with adequate training and ongoing supervision, and are reimbursed for their involvement.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review is the first review to focus on the use of peer mentors recovered from an eating disorder contributing to interventions for people receiving treatment for an eating disorder. All included studies present quantitative results. Given the emerging interest of lived experience mentoring, understanding its effectiveness for both mentees and impacts on mentors continues to be of critical importance. Resumen.
UNASSIGNED: Esta revisión sistemática buscó comprender la efectividad de la consejería de la experiencia vivida por parte de personas recuperadas de un trastorno de la conducta alimentaria, con muestras clínicas que actualmente reciben tratamiento para el trastorno alimentario.
UNASSIGNED: La revisión sistemática se realizó utilizando PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Scopus y ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Global y revisando las listas de referencias de los artículos incluidos. Los artículos se incluyeron si: (1) eran estudios de intervención que incluían la participación de pares (recuperados de un trastorno de la conducta alimentaria), (2) administraban la intervención a muestras clínicas (o cuidadores con participación directa en el tratamiento), (3) estaban en inglés y (4) incluían resultados cuantitativos.
UNASSIGNED: Se incluyeron once estudios en ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA), series de casos y un estudio de caso; hubo variación en la calidad. Los hallazgos variaron considerablemente y algunos concluyeron que la consejería de la experiencia vivida condujo a mejoras significativas para los aprendices, mientras que otros estudios no encontraron diferencias significativas. Los resultados del mentor a menudo no se evaluaron. De los que evaluaron a los mentores, hay evidencia preliminar de algunos beneficios de la participación, pero también del potencial de daño.
UNASSIGNED: Se necesitan estudios de investigación adicionales en esta área que utilicen ECA de alta calidad que aborden el riesgo de sesgo. Es importante que los mentores de pares de la experiencia vivida sean monitoreados en los resultados clave, provistos de capacitación adecuada y supervisión continua, y sean remunerados por su participación.Reprinted from Int J Eat Disord 2023; 56:331-349, with permission from Wiley. Copyright © 2023.

BACKGROUND: Resident performance on the Plastic Surgery In-Service Examination (PSITE) is used as a predictor of success on the American Board of Plastic Surgery Written Examination, as well as resident progression and fellowship applications. However, information specifically addressing strategies on optimal PSITE preparation is lacking in the plastic surgery literature when compared to general surgery. For this reason, we aim to understand if the topic is well-studied and denote effective study strategies and curricular interventions in both fields that can help residents and programs optimize PSITE performance.
METHODS: A literature search including studies from 2012 to 2022 was conducted following PRISMA guidelines in PubMed and EMBASE to identify articles on strategies to improve in-service exam scores for general surgery and plastic surgery. Only studies that reported measurable outcomes in raw score, percentile score, or percent correct were included.
RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of 30 articles revealed 2 categories of interventions: individual study habits and institutional curricular interventions. In general surgery literature, 27 articles examined interventions positively impacting resident ABSITE scores, with 21 studies classified as institutional curricular interventions and 6 articles addressing individual study habits. Themes associated with improved ABSITE performance included mandatory remediation programs, dedicated study time, and problem-based learning interventions. In contrast, only 3 articles in plastic surgery literature discussed interventions associated with improved PSITE scores, all falling under curricular interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, the plastic surgery literature lacks concrete evidence on how residents can improve performance. Future research in plastic surgery should replicate successful strategies from general surgery and further investigate optimal preparation strategies for the PSITE. Such endeavors can contribute to improving resident performance and advancing plastic surgery education and patient care.

BACKGROUND: Effective mentorship is an important component of medical education with benefits to all stakeholders. In recent years, conceptualization of mentorship has gone beyond the traditional dyadic experienced mentor-novice mentee relationship to include group and peer mentoring. Existing theories of mentorship do not recognize mentoring\'s personalized, evolving, goal-driven, and context-specific nature. Evidencing the limitations of traditional cause-and-effect concepts, the purpose of this review was to systematically search the literature to determine if mentoring can be viewed as a complex adaptive system (CAS).
METHODS: A systematic scoping review using Krishna\'s Systematic Evidence-Based Approach was employed to study medical student and resident accounts of mentoring and CAS in general internal medicine and related subspecialties in articles published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2023 in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The included articles underwent thematic and content analysis, with the themes identified and combined to create domains, which framed the discussion.
RESULTS: Of 5,704 abstracts reviewed, 134 full-text articles were evaluated, and 216 articles were included. The domains described how mentoring relationships and mentoring approaches embody characteristics of CAS and that mentorship often behaves as a community of practice (CoP). Mentoring\'s CAS-like features are displayed through CoPs, with distinct boundaries, a spiral mentoring trajectory, and longitudinal mentoring support and assessment processes.
CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing mentorship as a CAS demands the rethinking of the design, support, assessment, and oversight of mentorship and the role of mentors. Further study is required to better assess the mentoring process and to provide optimal training and support to mentors.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Mentorship is critical to success in postgraduate science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM) settings. As such, the purpose of this study is to comprehensively explore the state of mentorship interventions in postgraduate STEMM settings to identify novel practices and future research directions. The selection criteria for reviewed articles included: 1) published between 2002 and 2022, 2) peer-reviewed, 3) in English, 4) postgraduate mentees, 5) a program where mentorship is a significant, explicit focus, and 6) a description of mentee outcomes related to the mentorship intervention. Overall, 2583 articles were screened, and 109 articles were reviewed.
RESULTS: Most postgraduate STEMM mentorship intervention studies lack strong evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, with only 5.5% of articles designed as randomized controlled trials. Most mentorship interventions (45.6%) were created for faculty, and few (4%) were for postdoctoral researchers. Also, only 18.8% of interventions focused on underrepresented groups in STEMM. Most interventions (53.7%) prescribed a dyadic structure, and there was more mentorship training for mentors than mentees.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings identify gaps in mentorship interventions and provide step-by-step guidance for future interventions, including a consideration for underrepresented groups and postdoctoral scholars, robust mentorship training, and more randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Technological advances in robotics, artificial intelligence, cognitive algorithms, and internet-based coaches have contributed to the development of devices capable of responding to some of the challenges resulting from demographic aging. Numerous studies have explored the use of robotic coaching solutions (RCSs) for supporting healthy behaviors in older adults and have shown their benefits regarding the quality of life and functional independence of older adults at home. However, the use of RCSs by individuals who are potentially vulnerable raises many ethical questions. Establishing an ethical framework to guide the development, use, and evaluation practices regarding RCSs for older adults seems highly pertinent.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to highlight the ethical issues related to the use of RCSs for health care purposes among older adults and draft recommendations for researchers and health care professionals interested in using RCSs for older adults.
METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of the literature to identify publications including an analysis of the ethical dimension and recommendations regarding the use of RCSs for older adults. We used a qualitative analysis methodology inspired by a Health Technology Assessment model. We included all article types such as theoretical papers, research studies, and reviews dealing with ethical issues or recommendations for the implementation of these RCSs in a general population, particularly among older adults, in the health care sector and published after 2011 in either English or French. The review was performed between August and December 2021 using the PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Explore, SpringerLink, and PsycINFO databases. Selected publications were analyzed using the European Network of Health Technology Assessment Core Model (version 3.0) around 5 ethical topics: benefit-harm balance, autonomy, privacy, justice and equity, and legislation.
RESULTS: In the 25 publications analyzed, the most cited ethical concerns were the risk of accidents, lack of reliability, loss of control, risk of deception, risk of social isolation, data confidentiality, and liability in case of safety problems. Recommendations included collecting the opinion of target users, collecting their consent, and training professionals in the use of RCSs. Proper data management, anonymization, and encryption appeared to be essential to protect RCS users\' personal data.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis supports the interest in using RCSs for older adults because of their potential contribution to individuals\' quality of life and well-being. This analysis highlights many ethical issues linked to the use of RCSs for health-related goals. Future studies should consider the organizational consequences of the implementation of RCSs and the influence of cultural and socioeconomic specificities of the context of experimentation. We suggest implementing a scalable ethical and regulatory framework to accompany the development and implementation of RCSs for various aspects related to the technology, individual, or legal aspects.

BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching.
METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis.
RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

OBJECTIVE: To define the current state of peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the usability, acceptability, and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) techniques in surgical coaching and training.
METHODS: We conducted a literature search with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We searched five scholarly databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase via Elsevier, Scopus via Elsevier, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Healthcare Administration Database via ProQuest. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.
RESULTS: Only 4 articles met the inclusion criteria and used standardized methods for performance evaluation with expert observation. We found no literature examining the impact on performance, user acceptance, or implementation of AI/ML techniques used for surgical coaching and training. We highlight the need for qualitative and quantitative research demonstrating these techniques\' effectiveness before broad implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: We emphasize the need for research to specifically evaluate performance, impact, user acceptance, and implementation of AI/ML techniques. Incorporating these facets of research when developing AI/ML techniques for surgical training is crucial to ensure emerging technology meets user needs without increasing cognitive burden or frustrating users.

Objective: Parent peer advocacy, mentoring, and support programs, delivered by parents with lived child protection (CP) experience to parents receiving CP intervention, are increasingly recognized internationally as inclusive practices that promote positive outcomes, but little is known about what shared characteristics exist across these types of programs and what variations may exist in service delivery or impact. This scoping review examines 25 years (1996-2021) of empirical literature on these programs to develop a systematic mapping of existing models and practices as context for program benefits and outcome achievement. Method: Studies were selected using a systematic search process. The final sample comprised 45 publications that addressed research on 24 CP-related parent peer advocacy and support programs. Data analysis explored how programs were studied and conceptualized and examined their impact on parents, professionals, and the CP system. Results: Substantial variation in program settings, target populations, aims, advocate roles, and underlying theoretical frameworks were identified. Across program settings, existing empirical evidence on impact and outcomes also varied, though positive impacts and outcomes were evident across most settings. Conclusions: Findings from this review highlight the need to account better for parent peer advocacy and support program variations in future practice development to ensure alignment with inclusive and participatory principles and goals. Future research is also needed to address current knowledge gaps and shed light on the impact of these differences on individual, case, and system outcomes.