Cited by 34Innovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical EducationCommunity Health and Development

Promoting lay participation in medical school curriculum development: lay and faculty perceptions

O'Keefe, Maree, Jones, Alison·2007·Medical Education

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although medical schools are encouraged to increase community involvement in medical student training, little information is available about how best to achieve this. While lay community members are not medical 'experts', as recipients of health care services they have vested interests in ensuring optimal health care for themselves and their families. This study explored and compared lay and faculty perceptions around lay participation in medical curriculum development at one medical school. METHODS: Thirty-two lay volunteers responded to a newspaper advertisement. Seventeen volunteers subsequently participated in 1 of 3 lay focus group discussions. Ten academic staff attended a separate faculty focus group. The 3 lay participants and 1 faculty focus group transcripts were analysed independently and then compared using an iterative process of theme identification and hypothesis testing. RESULTS: Contrasting perspectives of lay and faculty participants were evident in all aspects of the focus group discussions. For lay participants, some sharing of curriculum ownership by medical experts with the lay community was regarded as necessary to create environments that legitimised lay status and acknowledged the importance of lay perspectives. Faculty participants presumed ownership of curriculum development, giving rise to a paternalistic approach to controlling resources and an assumed responsibility (as experts) to define the parameters of lay participation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study have highlighted many of the challenges inherent in the process of lay participation in medical curriculum development. A model is proposed to facilitate and promote lay participation in medical curriculum development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02666.x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • While they were not seen as medical experts, they did have an interest in ensuring optimal healthcare for themselves and their families.

    “While they were not seen as medical experts, they did have an interest in ensuring optimal healthcare for themselves and their families.26”
  • Lay participants of one study regarded sharing of curriculum ownership as necessary to acknowledge the importance of lay perspectives, whereas faculty participants presumed ownership of curriculum development.

    “Lay participants of one study regarded sharing of curriculum ownership as necessary to acknowledge the importance of lay perspectives, whereas faculty participants presumed ownership of curriculum development.26”
  • The resource intensity of a patient involvement programme requires the university to value its patient-centred underpinnings in order to be sustainable.

    “The authors emphasised that the resource intensity of a patient involvement programme requires the university to value its patient-centred underpinnings in order to be sustainable.26 44 45 61”
  • The key factors identified in sustaining patient involvement were the provision of adequate resource support, formal acknowledgement of the value of lay contributions and a clear faculty commitment to change following lay input.

    “The key factors identified in sustaining patient involvement were the provision of adequate resource support, formal acknowledgement of the value of lay contributions and a clear faculty commitment to change following lay input.26”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Keefe, M., & Jones, A.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-01-08
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
130-137
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2074651073
Cited by
34
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
Keywords
lay participation, lay volunteers, teacher perceptions, curriculum ownership, lay perspectives, curriculum development model
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Schools, Medical, South Australia, Teaching, Program Development, Focus Groups

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