Cost identification in health professions education: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Resource scarcity in health professions education (HPE) demands rigorous consideration of costs. Yet, thus far, we have been unable to completely and consistently identify the costs of HPE. To address this knowledge gap and enable use of economic evidence in decision making, a detailed overview of all existing costs and approaches to cost identification in HPE is needed. OBJECTIVES: This review summarises the diversity of costs, cost perspectives and cost identification methods used in economic research of HPE to answer the following questions: which educational topics, costs, cost perspectives and cost identification methods are being investigated in HPE literature? METHODS: This investigation followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews. PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL and PsycINFO were iteratively searched for English language publications between 2012 and 2022 that reported costs of HPE. Data was extracted for study characteristics, educational context and economic methodology. RESULTS: A total of 136 articles of original research on the costs of educating all major licence healthcare professionals were included. A diffuse interest in costs is reflected in publications from 93 distinct journals and by the diversity of educational topics and cost types explored. However, the majority of investigations failed to define the cost perspective (86, 63%) and cost identification methods (117, 86%) and did not demonstrate common reporting structure or cost terminology, all of which contribute to persistent inconsistencies in cost identification. CONCLUSION: The source of disharmonious cost identification in HPE is fuelled by diverse interests and divergent concepts of costs and costing methodology. Left in its current state, disharmonious cost identification will continue to limit transparency, comparison and synthesis of evidence, hamper objectivity in implementation and policy decisions and impede the efficient and sustainable allocation of resources. A research agenda must be developed, prioritised, and validated by the broader community to develop a theoretical framework for HPE cost research, define stakeholders, elicit values and preferences and chart a path toward harmonised costing.

The Effect of Using a Client-Accessible Health Record on Perceived Quality of Care: Interview Study Among Parents and Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are assumed to enhance the quality of care, expressed in terms of safety, effectiveness, timeliness, person centeredness, efficiency, and equity. However, research on the impact of PAEHRs on the perceived quality of care among parents, children, and adolescents is largely lacking. In the Netherlands, a PAEHR (Iuvenelis) was developed for preventive child health care and youth care. Parents and adolescents had access to its full content, could manage appointments, ask questions, and comment on written reports. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess whether and how using this PAEHR contributes to perceived quality of care from a client's perspective. METHODS: We chose a qualitative design with a phenomenological approach to explore how parents and adolescents perceived the impact of using a PAEHR on quality of care. In-depth interviews that simultaneously included 1 to 3 people were conducted in 2021. In total, 20 participants were included in the study, representing parents and adolescents, both sexes, different educational levels, different native countries, and all participating municipalities. Within this group, 7 of 13 (54%) parents had not previously been informed about the existence of a client portal. Their expectations of using the client portal, in relation to quality of care, were discussed after a demonstration of the portal. RESULTS: Parents and adolescents perceived that using Iuvenelis contributed to the quality of care because they felt better informed and more involved in the care process than before the introduction of Iuvenelis. Moreover, they experienced more control over their health data, faster and simpler access to their health information, and found it easier to manage appointments or ask questions at their convenience. Parents from a migratory background, among whom 6 of 7 (86%) had not previously been informed about the portal, expected that portal access would enhance their understanding of and control over their care processes. The parents expressed concerns about equity because parents from a migratory background might have less access to the service. Nevertheless, portal usability was regarded as high. Furthermore, both parents and adolescents saw room for improvement in the broader interdisciplinary use of Iuvenelis and the quality of reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Using Iuvenelis can contribute to the client-experienced quality of care, more specifically to perceived person centeredness, timeliness, safety, efficiency, and integration of care. However, some quality aspects, such as equity, still need addressing. In general, client information about the portal needs to be improved, specifically focusing on people in vulnerable circumstances, such as those from migratory backgrounds. In addition, to maximize the potential benefit of using Iuvenelis, stimulating a person-centered attitude among professionals is important. Considering the small number of adolescent participants (n=7), adding quantitative data from a structured survey could strengthen the available evidence.

Identifying costs in health professions education: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Profound changes in the healthcare sector and the growing, global shortage of healthcare workers are driving the demand to update and scale-up health professions education (HPE). At the same time, educational institutions are faced with increasing resource scarcity and decisions of where and how to allocate resources must be made conscious of costs. However, costs are known to be inaccurately and incompletely identified in HPE research. Therefore, to improve rigour in cost evidence and enable its use in decision-making, it is necessary to have a better understanding of the costs, stakeholders and cost identification methods being used in HPE research. This protocol has been developed to outline the rationale and methods for a scoping review of the literature intended to map the current state of cost and cost identification evidence in HPE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is developed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL and PsycInfo will be scoped for all types of English language publications from 2012 to 2022 that investigate costs associated with the education of health professionals. Two independent reviewers will assess publications for eligibility. Data will be extracted on the educational topic and context, the costs, cost types, perspectives and methods of cost identification as represented in the literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No human participants are involved in this scoping review. All evidence for this study are sourced from public databases; therefore, ethical approval was not required. Final results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: A preliminary version of this protocol was prospectively registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) on 13 June 2022 and is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ET4XB.