Author:
Allouch Soumaya,Ali Raja Mahamade,Al-Wattary Noor,Nomikos Michail,Abu-Hijleh Marwan F.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Curriculum integration is an important educational concept widely implemented by various educational institutions, particularly within the healthcare field. Its significance lies in enhancing the preparation of future healthcare professionals. The assessment of these integrated curricula is imperative to guarantee their effectiveness. Consequently, the aim of this systematic review is to delve into existing literature, with the goal of identifying instruments designed to assess the extent of curriculum integration in health professions’ education.
Methods
A comprehensive search was conducted to identify peer-reviewed papers and grey literature describing the development, validation, or use of instruments measuring the degree of integration in a curriculum. Eight databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, CINAHL Ultimate, Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest Central and EMBASE. Grey literature was also included. Titles, abstracts, and full text screening was conducted. Data extraction was done using a data extraction tool developed by our research team.
Results
The search resulted in the identification of 2094 references. After the removal of duplicates and title and abstract screening, 16 articles were deemed suitable for inclusion in this systematic review. Twenty-two instruments were extracted from these articles. The identified instruments assessed either integration attributes, perceptions about the integrated curriculum characteristics, process and outcomes, or curriculum integration level. Two of the instruments were focused on assessing horizontal integration (Basic Science Curriculum Assessment Instrument and the integration characteristic tool). In addition, one instrument was developed to assess integration within a single session only, while other instruments assessed curriculum integration level. Two of the integration instruments (The Session Integration Tool and Integration Ladder Questionnaire) provided scales for calculating integration levels. Validation of the integration assessment instruments was infrequent, with only 9 of 22 instruments validated for their psychometric properties.
Conclusion
Our findings reveal the existence of diverse instruments designed to assess the extent of curriculum integration within health professions’ curricula. The majority of identified instruments were focused on participants’ perceptions towards the attributes of the integrated curriculum, and a significant number of these tools lacked validation.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference49 articles.
1. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE guide 96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):312–22.
2. Quintero GA, Vergel J, Arredondo M, Ariza MC, Gómez P, Pinzon-Barrios AM. Integrated medical curriculum: advantages and disadvantages. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2016;3:133–7.
3. Matinho D, Pietrandrea M, Echeverria C, Helderman R, Masters M, Regan D, et al. A systematic review of integrated learning definitions, frameworks, and practices in recent health professions education literature. Educ Sci (Basel). 2022;12(3):165.
4. Harden RM, Sowden S, Dunn WR. Educational strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model. Med Educ. 1984;18:284–97.
5. Wijnen-Meijer M, van den Broek S, Koens F, ten Cate O. Vertical integration in medical education: the broader perspective. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:509.