Lessons learned spanning 17 years of experience with three consecutive nationwide competency based medical education training plans.

Introduction: Curricula for postgraduate medical education have transformed since the introduction of competency based medical education (CBME). Postgraduate training plans offer broader training with different competencies and an outcome-based approach, in addition to the medical technical aspects of training. However, CBME also has its challenges. Over the past years, critical views have been shared on the potential drawbacks of CBME, such as assessment burden and conflicts with practicality in the workplace. Recent studies identified a need for a better understanding of how the evolving concept of CBME has been translated to curriculum design and implemented in the practice of postgraduate training. The aim of this study was to describe the development of CBME translations to curriculum design, based on three consecutive postgraduate training programs spanning 17 years. Method: We performed a document analysis of three consecutive Dutch gynecology and obstetrics training plans that were implemented in 2005, 2013, and 2021. We used template analysis to identify changes over time. Results: Over time, CBME-based curriculum design changed in several domains. Assessment changed from a model with a focus on summative decision to one with an emphasis on formative, low-stakes assessments aimed at supporting learning. The training plans evolved in parallel to evolving educational insights, e.g., by placing increasing emphasis on personal development. The curricula focused on a competency-based concept by introducing training modules and personalized authorization based on feedback rather than on a set duration of internships. There was increasing freedom in personalized training trajectories in the training plans, together with increasing trust towards the resident. Conclusion: The way CBME was translated into training plans has evolved in the course of 17 years of experience with CMBE-based education. The main areas of change were the structure of the training plans, which became increasingly open, the degree to which learning outcomes were mandatory or not, and the way these outcomes were assessed.

How do validity experts conceptualise argumentation? It's a rhetorical question.

INTRODUCTION: Health professions education (HPE) has adopted the conceptualization of validity as an argument. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of how validity arguments should be developed, used and evaluated in HPE have not been deeply explored. Articulating the argumentation theory undergirding validity and validation can help HPE better operationalise validity as an argument. To better understand this, the authors explored how HPE validity scholars conceptualise assessment validity arguments and argumentation, seeking to understand potential consequences of these views on validation practices. METHODS: The authors used critical case sampling to identify HPE assessment validity experts in three ways: (1) participation in a prominent validity research group, (2) appearing in a bibliometric study of HPE validity publications and (3) authorship of recent HPE validity literature. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 experts in HPE assessment validity from four different countries. The authors used reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes relevant to their research question. RESULTS: The authors developed three themes grounded in participants' responses: (1) In theory, HPE validity is a social and situated argument. (2) In practice, the absence of audience and evaluation stymies the social nature of HPE validity. (3) Lack of validity argumentation creates and maintains power differentials within HPE. Participants articulated that current HPE validation practices are rooted in post-positivist epistemology when they should be situated (i.e. context-dependent), audience-centric and inclusive. DISCUSSION: When discussing validity argumentation in theory, participants' descriptions reflect an interpretivist lens for evaluation that is misaligned with real-world validity practices. This misalignment likely arises from HPE's adoption of "validity as an argument" as a slogan, without integrating theoretical and practical principles of argumentation theory.

Combining Support and Assessment in Health Professions Education: Mentors' and Mentees' Experiences in a Programmatic Assessment Context.

Introduction: Mentors in programmatic assessment support mentees with low-stakes feedback, which often also serves as input for high-stakes decision making. That process potentially causes tensions in the mentor-mentee relationship. This study explored how undergraduate mentors and mentees in health professions education experience combining developmental support and assessment, and what this means for their relationship. Methods: The authors chose a pragmatic qualitative research approach and conducted semi-structured vignette-based interviews with 24 mentors and 11 mentees that included learners from medicine and the biomedical sciences. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: How participants combined developmental support and assessment varied. In some mentor-mentee relationships it worked well, in others it caused tensions. Tensions were also created by unintended consequences of design decisions at the program level. Dimensions impacted by experienced tensions were: relationship quality, dependence, trust, and nature and focus of mentoring conversations. Mentors and mentees mentioned applying various strategies to alleviate tensions: transparency and expectation management, distinguishing between developmental support and assessment, and justifying assessment responsibility. Discussion: Combining the responsibility for developmental support and assessment within an individual worked well in some mentor-mentee relationships, but caused tensions in others. On the program level, clear decisions should be made regarding the design of programmatic assessment: what is the program of assessment and how are responsibilities divided between all involved? If tensions arise, mentors and mentees can try to alleviate these, but continuous mutual calibration of expectations between mentors and mentees remains of key importance.

Challenges, coping and support during student placement abroad: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: During placements abroad, healthcare students are confronted with different personal and professional challenges, related to participation in practice. This study investigates when and how students respond to such challenges, and which coping and support mechanisms students use to overcome these. METHODS: Twenty-five international students shared their experiences about physiotherapy placement in The Netherlands. Using a critical incident technique, we asked participants to recall events where participation was affected by an unforeseen situation, in or outside the clinic. Further, we explored students' strategies of seeking support within their social network to overcome individual challenges. Two researchers applied thematic analysis to the interview data, following an iterative approach. Team discussions supported focused direction of data collection and analysis, before conceptualizing results. RESULTS: Participants described a wide range of challenges. The scope and impact level of challenges varied widely, including intercultural differences, language barriers and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, students' personal context and wellbeing. Mechanisms employed by students to overcome these challenges depended on the type of event (personal or professional), making purposeful use of their available network. CONCLUSION: Students involve clinical staff, peers, family and friends during placement abroad, to make deliberate use of their support network to overcome challenges in participation, whereas the academic network remains distant. Findings may help reflect on the roles and responsibilities of academic staff and other professionals involved with placements abroad. Healthcare programmes should ensure support before, during and after placement is within students' reach.

Pharmacist trainees narrow scope of interprofessional collaboration and communication in hospital practice.

Early curricular exposure to interprofessional education (IPE) is intended to acclimatize health professional trainees to shared-care in the practice settings they will ultimately join. However, IPE activities typically reside outside actual organizational and social systems in which interprofessional care is delivered. We aimed to explore how pharmacist trainees experience collaborator and communicator competency roles during team-based workplace-based learning. Participants maintained written diaries reflecting on interprofessional collaboration and communication during an eight-week hospital clerkship. Diary entries and transcripts from semi-structured follow-up interviews were analyzed from the social constructivist perspective using reflective thematic analysis. Participant accounts of on-ward activities represented most collaborator and communicator roles outlined in pharmacy and interprofessional competency frameworks, but were predominantly between the pharmacist trainee and physicians. Pharmacist trainees did not routinely engage with other health professions on a daily basis. Additionally, reported encounters with other team members were typically information exchanges and not episodes of authentic interdependent or shared care. Interactions were almost completely devoid of perceived interpersonal or role conflict. These findings offer insight into how pharmacist trainees perceive and develop competencies for team-based care. Further work is required to understand how such limited scope of interprofessional communication and collaboration might ultimately impair quality patient care.

Mentoring is in the 'I' of the beholder: supporting mentors in reflecting on their actual and preferred way of mentoring.

BACKGROUND: An important strategy to support the professional development of mentors in health professions education is to encourage critical reflection on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. Not only the 'how' of mentoring should be covered, but also the implicit knowledge and beliefs fundamental to the mentoring practice (a mentor's personal interpretative framework). This study analyzed the extent to which mentors perceive a difference between how they actually mentor and how they prefer to mentor. METHODS: The MERIT (MEntor Reflection InstrumenT) survey (distributed in 2020, N = 228), was used to ask mentors about the how, what, and why of their mentoring in two response modes: (1) regarding their actual mentoring practice and (2) regarding their preferred mentoring practice. With an analysis of covariance, it was explored whether potential discrepancies between these responses were influenced by experience, profession of the mentor, and curriculum-bound assessment requirements. RESULTS: The averaged total MERIT score and averaged scores for the subscales 'Supporting Personal Development' and 'Monitoring Performance' were significantly higher for preferred than for actual mentoring. In addition, mentors' experience interacted significantly with these scores, such that the difference between actual and preferred scores became smaller with more years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Mentors can reflect on their actual and preferred approach to mentoring. This analysis and the potential discrepancy between actual and preferred mentoring can serve as input for individual professional development trajectories.

Early career experiences of international medical program graduates: An international, longitudinal, mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Increasingly medical students pursue medical education abroad. Graduates from International Medical Programs (IMPs) practice globally, yet how to prepare students for an unknown international environment is complex. Following IMP graduates throughout their early careers, this study offers insights into gaps in current undergraduate education. METHODS: In this international, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, 188 graduates from seven IMPs completed baseline surveys on career choice and job preparedness. Forty-two participants completed follow-up until three years after graduation. Nine graduates participated in semi-structured interviews on individual experiences and the evolution of their perspectives. The multiphase, sequential design allowed data collected at baseline to inform further data collection instruments. RESULTS: Two typical student profiles emerged. The first depicts a student who, despite the challenges of studying abroad, pursues a medical degree 'anyhow', with a common aim of practicing in their home country. The other deliberately selects an IMP while envisaging an international career. Two years after graduation, the majority (> 70%) of our participants were practicing in a country other than their country of training. They reported challenges around licensing, the job application process and health system familiarization. Participants' experiences point towards potential curriculum adaptations to facilitate cross-border transitions, including career guidance, networking and entrance exam preparation. DISCUSSION: IMP graduates lack support in practical aspects of career orientation and international exposure. Most IMPs essentially prepare their graduates for a career elsewhere. Gaps and challenges that IMP graduates experience in this cross-border career transition entail a responsibility for preparation and guidance that is currently lacking in IMP curricula.

How argumentation theory can inform assessment validity: A critical review.

INTRODUCTION: Many health professions education (HPE) scholars frame assessment validity as a form of argumentation in which interpretations and uses of assessment scores must be supported by evidence. However, what are purported to be validity arguments are often merely clusters of evidence without a guiding framework to evaluate, prioritise, or debate their merits. Argumentation theory is a field of study dedicated to understanding the production, analysis, and evaluation of arguments (spoken or written). The aim of this study is to describe argumentation theory, articulating the unique insights it can offer to HPE assessment, and presenting how different argumentation orientations can help reconceptualize the nature of validity in generative ways. METHODS: The authors followed a five-step critical review process consisting of iterative cycles of focusing, searching, appraising, sampling, and analysing the argumentation theory literature. The authors generated and synthesised a corpus of manuscripts on argumentation orientations deemed to be most applicable to HPE. RESULTS: We selected two argumentation orientations that we considered particularly constructive for informing HPE assessment validity: New rhetoric and informal logic. In new rhetoric, the goal of argumentation is to persuade, with a focus on an audience's values and standards. Informal logic centres on identifying, structuring, and evaluating arguments in real-world settings, with a variety of normative standards used to evaluate argument validity. DISCUSSION: Both new rhetoric and informal logic provide philosophical, theoretical, or practical groundings that can advance HPE validity argumentation. New rhetoric's foregrounding of audience aligns with HPE's social imperative to be accountable to specific stakeholders such as the public and learners. Informal logic provides tools for identifying and structuring validity arguments for analysis and evaluation.

Joining the meta-research movement: A bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education.

PURPOSE: To conduct a bibliometric case study of the journal Perspectives on Medical Education (PME) to provide insights into the journal's inner workings and to "take stock" of where PME is today, where it has been, and where it might go. METHODS: Data, including bibliographic metadata, reviewer and author details, and downloads, were collected for manuscripts submitted to and published in PME from the journal's Editorial Manager and Web of Science. Gender of authors and reviewers was predicted using Genderize.io. To visualize and analyze collaboration patterns, citation relationships and term co-occurrence social network analyses (SNA) were conducted. VOSviewer was used to visualize the social network maps. RESULTS: Between 2012-2019 PME received, on average, 260 manuscripts annually (range = 73-402). Submissions were received from authors in 81 countries with the majority in the United States (US), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. PME published 518 manuscripts with authors based in 31 countries, the majority being in the Netherlands, US, and Canada. PME articles were downloaded 717,613 times (mean per document: 1388). In total 1201 (55% women) unique peer reviewers were invited and 649 (57% women) completed reviews; 1227 (49% women) unique authors published in PME. SNA revealed that PME authors were quite collaborative, with most authoring articles with others and only a minority (n = 57) acting as single authors. DISCUSSION: This case study provides a glimpse into PME and offers evidence for PME's next steps. In the future, PME is committed to growing the journal thoughtfully; diversifying and educating editorial teams, authors, and reviewers, and liberating and sharing journal data.

How medical students co-regulate their learning in clinical clerkships: a social network study.

BACKGROUND: Self-regulated learning is a key competence to engage in lifelong learning. Research increasingly acknowledges that medical students in clerkships need others to regulate their learning. The concept of "co-regulated learning" captures this act of regulating one's learning by interacting with others. To effectively cultivate such skills in students, we need to increase our understanding of co-regulated learning. This study aimed to identify the purposes for which students in different phases of clinical training engage others in their networks to regulate their learning. METHODS: In this social network study, we administered a questionnaire to 403 medical students during clinical clerkships (65.5% response rate). The questionnaire probed into the composition of students' co-regulatory networks and the purpose for which they engaged others in specified self-regulated learning activities. We calculated the proportion of students that engaged others in their networks for each regulatory activity. Additionally, we conducted ANOVAs to examine whether first-, second-, and third-year students differed in how they used their networks to support self-regulation. RESULTS: Students used others within their co-regulatory networks to support a range of self-regulated learning activities. Whom students engaged, and the purpose of engagement, seemed to shift as students progressed through clinical training. Over time, the proportion of students engaging workplace supervisors to discuss learning goals, learning strategies, self-reflections and self-evaluations increased, whereas the proportion of students engaging peers to discuss learning strategies and how to work on learning goals in the workplace decreased. Of all purposes for which students engaged others measured, discussing self-reflections and self-evaluations were consistently among the ones most frequently mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Results reinforce the notion that medical students' regulation of learning is grounded in social interactions within co-regulatory networks students construct during clerkships. Findings elucidate the extent to which students enact self-regulatory learning within their co-regulatory networks and how their co-regulatory learning behaviors develop over time. Explicating the relevance of interactions within co-regulatory networks might help students and supervisors to purposefully engage in meaningful co-regulatory interactions. Additionally, co-regulatory interactions may assist students in regulating their learning in clinical workplaces as well as in honing their self-regulated learning skills.

Assessing trainee performance: ensuring learner control, supporting development, and maximizing assessment moments.

In this article, the authors provide practical guidance for frontline supervisors' efforts to assess trainee performance. They focus on three areas. First, they argue the importance of promoting learner control in the assessment process, noting that providing learners agency and control can shift the stakes of assessment from high to low and promote a safe environment that facilitates learning. Second, they posit that assessment should be used to support continued development by promoting a relational partnership between trainees and supervisors. This partnership allows supervisors to reinforce desirable aspects of performance, provide real-time support for deficient areas of performance, and sequence learning with the appropriate amount of scaffolding to push trainees from competence (what they can do alone) to capability (what they are able to do with support). Finally, they advocate the importance of optimizing the use of written comments and direct observation while also recognizing that performance is interdependent in efforts to maximize assessment moments.Conclusion: Using best practices in trainee assessment can help trainees take next steps in their development in a learner-centered partnership with clinical supervisors. What is Known: • Many pediatricians are asked to assess the performance of medical students and residents they work with but few have received formal training in assessment. What is New: • This article presents evidence-based best practices for assessing trainees, including giving trainees agency in the assessment process and focusing on helping trainees take next steps in their development.

Putting self-regulated learning in context: Integrating self-, co-, and socially shared regulation of learning.

Processes involved in the regulation of learning have been researched for decades, because of its impact on academic and workplace performance. In fact, self-regulated learning is the focus of countless studies in health professions education and higher education in general. While we will always need competent individuals who are able to regulate their own learning, developments in healthcare require a shift from a focus on the individual to the collective: collaboration within and between healthcare teams is at the heart of high-quality patient care. Concepts of collaborative learning and collective competence challenge commonly held conceptualisations of regulatory learning and call for a focus on the social embeddedness of regulatory learning and processes regulating the learning of the collective. Therefore, this article questions the alignment of current conceptualisations of regulation of learning with demands for collaboration in current healthcare. We explore different conceptualisations of regulation of learning (self-, co-, and socially shared regulation of learning), and elaborate on how the integration of these conceptualisations adds to our understanding of regulatory learning in healthcare settings. Building on these insights, we furthermore suggest ways forward for research and educational practice.

Relationships between medical students' co-regulatory network characteristics and self-regulated learning: a social network study.

INTRODUCTION: Recent conceptualizations of self-regulated learning acknowledge the importance of co-regulation, i.e., students' interactions with others in their networks to support self-regulation. Using a social network approach, the aim of this study is to explore relationships between characteristics of medical students' co-regulatory networks, perceived learning opportunities, and self-regulated learning. METHODS: The authors surveyed 403 undergraduate medical students during their clinical clerkships (response rate 65.5%). Using multiple regression analysis, structural equation modelling techniques, and analysis of variance, the authors explored relationships between co-regulatory network characteristics (network size, network diversity, and interaction frequency), students' perceptions of learning opportunities in the workplace setting, and self-reported self-regulated learning. RESULTS: Across all clerkships, data showed positive relationships between tie strength and self-regulated learning (ß = 0.095, p < 0.05) and between network size and tie strength (ß = 0.530, p < 0.001), and a negative relationship between network diversity and tie strength (ß = -0.474, p < 0.001). Students' perceptions of learning opportunities showed positive relationships with both self-regulated learning (ß = 0.295, p < 0.001) and co-regulatory network size (ß = 0.134, p < 0.01). Characteristics of clerkship contexts influenced both co-regulatory network characteristics (size and tie strength) and relationships between network characteristics, self-regulated learning, and students' perceptions of learning opportunities. DISCUSSION: The present study reinforces the importance of co-regulatory networks for medical students' self-regulated learning during clinical clerkships. Findings imply that supporting development of strong networks aimed at frequent co-regulatory interactions may enhance medical students' self-regulated learning in challenging clinical learning environments. Social network approaches offer promising ways of further understanding and conceptualising self- and co-regulated learning in clinical workplaces.

I, we and they: A linguistic and narrative exploration of the authorship process.

INTRODUCTION: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. METHOD: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). RESULTS: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

'It depends': The complexity of allowing residents to fail from the perspective of clinical supervisors.

PURPOSE: Clinical supervisors acknowledge that they sometimes allow trainees to fail for educational purposes. What remains unknown is how supervisors decide whether to allow failure in a specific instance. Given the high stakes nature of these decisions, such knowledge is necessary to inform conversations about this educationally powerful and clinically delicate phenomenon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 19 supervisors participated in semi-structured interviews to explore how they view their decision to allow failure in clinical training. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, the iteratively collected data and analysis were informed by theoretical sampling. RESULTS: Recalling instances when they considered allowing residents to fail for educational purposes, supervisors characterized these as intuitive, in-the-moment decisions. In their post hoc reflections, they could articulate four factors that they believed influenced these decisions: patient, supervisor, trainee, and environmental factors. While patient factors were reported as primary, the factors appear to interact in dynamic and nonlinear ways, such that supervisory decisions about allowing failure may not be predictable from one situation to the next. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical supervisors make many decisions in the moment, and allowing resident failure appears to be one of them. Upon reflection, supervisors understand their decisions to be shaped by recurring factors in the clinical training environment. The complex interplay among these factors renders predicting such decisions difficult, if not impossible. However, having a language for these dynamic factors can support clinical educators to have meaningful discussions about this high-stakes educational strategy.

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation.

INTRODUCTION: Authors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution. METHODS: In 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals. RESULTS: The authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1-22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally. CONCLUSION: Knowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses.

'A roller coaster of emotions': a phenomenological study on medical students lived experiences of emotions in complex simulation.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based education can induce intense learner emotions. The interplay between emotions and learning is less well understood. Gaining greater insights into learner emotions has potential to guide how best we manage emotions and optimise learning. This study aimed to understand learners' lived emotional experiences in complex simulation and the perceived impact on learning. METHODS: Eight final-year medical students participated in the study. Wearing video-glasses, participants took part in a ward-based simulation. Video-footage was used to elicitate exploratory interviews and analysed using Template Analysis reflexively. RESULTS: Analysis yielded four main themes: 'nervous anticipation': encapsulating the fear, anxiety and uncertainty experienced by learners prior to simulation; 'shock and awe': feelings of anxiousness and being overwhelmed at the start of a simulation; 'in the moment: flowing or buffeting with the emotions': experiencing fear of being judged as incompetent, but also experiencing positive emotions such as satisfaction; 'safe-landing?': whilst debriefing aimed to encourage more positive emotions, negative emotions about the simulation could persist even with debriefing. CONCLUSIONS: Complex simulation can evoke intense emotions in students. If students experienced a positive progression, they reported positive emotions and felt competent which was perceived to have a positive impact on learning. If students experienced failure, they reported strong negative emotions which made them question about their future performance and was perceived as negative for learning. Bringing to the surface these complex emotional dynamics, could permit educators to be aware of and adapt the emotional climate within simulation in order to optimise learning.

Initiation of student participation in practice: An audio diary study of international clinical placements.

BACKGROUND: Differences in professional practice might hinder initiation of student participation during international placements, and thereby limit workplace learning. This study explores how healthcare students overcome differences in professional practice during initiation of international placements. METHODS: Twelve first-year physiotherapy students recorded individual audio diaries during the first month of international clinical placement. Recordings were transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed following a template analysis approach. Team discussions focused on thematic interpretation of results. RESULTS: Students described tackling differences in professional practice via ongoing negotiations of practice between them, local professionals, and peers. Three themes were identified as the focus of students' orientation and adjustment efforts: professional practice, educational context, and individual approaches to learning. Healthcare students' initiation during international placements involved a cyclical process of orientation and adjustment, supported by active participation, professional dialogue, and self-regulated learning strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of student participation during international placements can be supported by establishing a continuous dialogue between student and healthcare professionals. This dialogue helps align mutual expectations regarding scope of practice, and increase understanding of professional and educational practices. Better understanding, in turn, creates trust and favors meaningful students' contribution to practice and patient care.

MERIT: a mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework.

BACKGROUND: Essential to the professional development of mentors is making explicit and critically challenging the knowledge and beliefs underpinning their mentoring practice. This paper reports on the development of a survey instrument called MERIT, MEntor Reflection InstrumenT, which was designed to support mentors' systematic reflection on the how, what and why of their practice. METHODS: In 2019, a twenty-item survey instrument was developed and piloted. Initial validation data (N = 228) were collected by distributing the survey through the authors' network. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted and internal consistency reliability coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: The Principal Axis EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation (Delta = 0) resulted in four factors: 1) supporting personal development, 2) modelling professional development, 3) fostering autonomy, and 4) monitoring performance. The four factors explained 43% of the total variance of item scores. The Cronbach's alphas for the subscale scores were between .42 and .75. CONCLUSIONS: The MERIT can help mentors reflect on their beliefs and professional knowhow. These reflections can serve as input for the faculty development initiatives mentors undertake, which may ultimately improve their knowledge and skills as a mentor.