Cited by 9Innovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical EducationHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Expert Consensus Guidelines for Assessing Students on the Social Determinants of Health

Mangold, Karen A., Williams, Anna-leila, Ngongo, Wivine, Liveris, Marissa, Caruso Brown, Amy E., Adler, Mark D., Campbell, Mobola·2023·Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Abstract

PHENOMENON: Assessment and evaluation guidelines inform programmatic changes necessary for educational effectiveness. Presently, no widely accepted guidelines exist for educators to assess learners and evaluate programs regarding social determinants of health (SDOH) during physician and physician assistant (PA) education. We sought to garner expert consensus about effective SDOH learner assessment and program evaluation, so as to make recommendations for best practices related to SDOH education. APPROACH: We used a Delphi approach to conduct our study (September 2019 to December 2020). To administer our Delphi survey, we followed a three-step process: 1) literature review, 2) focus groups and semi-structured interviews, 3) question development and refinement. The final survey contained 72 items that addressed SDOH content areas, assessment methods, assessors, assessment integration, and program evaluation. Survey participants included 14 SDOH experts at US medical schools and PA programs. The survey was circulated for three rounds seeking consensus, and when respondents reached consensus on a particular question, that question was removed from subsequent rounds. FINDINGS: The geographically diverse sample of experts reached consensus on many aspects of SDOH assessment and evaluation. The experts selected three important areas to assess learners' knowledge, skills, and attitudes about SDOH. They identified assessment methods that were "essential", "useful, but not essential", and "not necessary." The essential assessment methods are performance rating scales for knowledge and attitudes and skill-based assessments. They favored faculty and patients as assessors, as well as learner self-assessment, over assessments conducted by other health professionals. Questions about separation versus incorporation of SDOH assessment with other educational assessment did not yield consensus opinion. The experts reached consensus on priority outcome measures to evaluate a school's SDOH program which included student attitudes toward SDOH, Competence-Based Assessment Scales, and the percentage of graduates involved in health equity initiatives. INSIGHTS: Based on the Delphi survey results, we make five recommendations that medical and PA educators can apply now when designing learner assessments and evaluating SDOH programming. These recommendations include what should be assessed, using what methods, who should do the assessments, and how they should be incorporated into the curriculum. This expert consensus should guide future development of an assessment and evaluation toolkit to optimize SDOH education and clinical practice. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2045490 .

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10401334.2022.2045490

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0918 · DOI
  2. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003400 · DOI
  3. 10.7326/M17-2441 · DOI
  4. Skochelak SE, 2016, Health Systems Science, 228
  5. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000951 · DOI
  6. 10.1080/10401334.2020.1825962 · DOI
  7. 10.1080/10401334.2019.1704765 · DOI
  8. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001960 · DOI
  9. 10.2147/AMEP.S243827 · DOI
  10. 10.1097/ACM.00000 · DOI
  11. 10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637 · DOI
  12. 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1500016 · DOI
  13. 10.1007/s11606-019-04876-0 · DOI
  14. 10.1080/13611260500069947 · DOI
  15. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001812 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/0748175613513808 · DOI
  17. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1111/medu.13487 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/s40037-016-0318-9 · DOI
  20. 10.1001/jama.287.2.226 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02060.x · DOI
  22. 10.1097/00001888-199610000-00062 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mangold, K. A., Williams, A.-L., Ngongo, W., Liveris, M., Caruso Brown, A. E., Adler, M. D., & Campbell, M.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Quinnipiac University (US)
  • Center for Bioethics and Humanities and Department of Pediatrics, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, USA
  • Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Mangold, Karen A.
Venue
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Published
2022-03-16
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
256-264
ISSN
  • 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8015
OpenAlex
W4220904932
Cited by
9
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Teaching and Learning in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
social determinants of health, student assessment, program evaluation, physician training, physician assistant education, competency-based assessment, assessment methods, assessment integration, health equity, student attitudes, expert consensus, curriculum development, student self-assessment, skill-based assessment, outcome measures, medical schools, evaluation toolkit
MeSH terms
Attitude, Faculty, Health Personnel, Humans, Students, Social Determinants of Health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review