Scholarlink

Background <p>Mental disorders contribute substantially to global disease burden, yet persistent deficiencies remain in medical trainees’ readiness to identify, diagnose, and treat patients with mental health conditions. Main barriers include stigma, outdated curricula, insufficient clinical practice, and regional differences in mental health services.</p> Objectives <p>This scoping review systematically mapped existing research on educational innovations, learning approaches, and evaluation instruments in psychiatric education for medical learners (2015–2026), with formal quality appraisal using a JBI-adapted tool.</p> Methods <p>Following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. The PCC model guided eligibility. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. A ten-item JBI-adapted quality appraisal checklist was applied to all included studies. The evidence base comprised 34 primary empirical studies (77.3%) and 10 secondary or contextual sources (22.7%).</p> Results <p>Of 3,682 articles identified, 44 met inclusion criteria 34 primary empirical studies (77.3%) and 10 secondary sources (22.7%). Most originated from the United States (54.5%), focusing on undergraduate learners (88.6%). Quality appraisal revealed only 34.1% used validated measures, 20.5% included follow-up, and 18.2% fully met control group criteria. Thematic analysis identified five themes: curricular innovations, educational approaches, assessment methods, Kirkpatrick-classified outcomes, and implementation barriers/facilitators. While all 44 reported Level 1 and Level 2 outcomes, measured in primary studies and discussed in secondary sources, no studies measured Level 3 behavioral change or Level 4 patient outcomes.</p> Conclusions <p>The absence of Level 3 and Level 4 evidence represents a major limitation and priority for future research; it does not imply health systems cannot invest in psychiatric education, but that the evidence base has not yet demonstrated translation to improved clinical behaviors or patient outcomes. Future research should prioritize longitudinal and system-level evaluation with validated behavioral and patient-level outcome measures.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Psychiatric education in medical training: a scoping review of curricular innovations, teaching strategies, and assessment methods

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月2日

查看全文
  • Ibrahim Aqtam,
  • Khulud Mansor,
  • Mustafa Shouli

摘要

Background

Mental disorders contribute substantially to global disease burden, yet persistent deficiencies remain in medical trainees’ readiness to identify, diagnose, and treat patients with mental health conditions. Main barriers include stigma, outdated curricula, insufficient clinical practice, and regional differences in mental health services.

Objectives

This scoping review systematically mapped existing research on educational innovations, learning approaches, and evaluation instruments in psychiatric education for medical learners (2015–2026), with formal quality appraisal using a JBI-adapted tool.

Methods

Following JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Scopus. The PCC model guided eligibility. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. A ten-item JBI-adapted quality appraisal checklist was applied to all included studies. The evidence base comprised 34 primary empirical studies (77.3%) and 10 secondary or contextual sources (22.7%).

Results

Of 3,682 articles identified, 44 met inclusion criteria 34 primary empirical studies (77.3%) and 10 secondary sources (22.7%). Most originated from the United States (54.5%), focusing on undergraduate learners (88.6%). Quality appraisal revealed only 34.1% used validated measures, 20.5% included follow-up, and 18.2% fully met control group criteria. Thematic analysis identified five themes: curricular innovations, educational approaches, assessment methods, Kirkpatrick-classified outcomes, and implementation barriers/facilitators. While all 44 reported Level 1 and Level 2 outcomes, measured in primary studies and discussed in secondary sources, no studies measured Level 3 behavioral change or Level 4 patient outcomes.

Conclusions

The absence of Level 3 and Level 4 evidence represents a major limitation and priority for future research; it does not imply health systems cannot invest in psychiatric education, but that the evidence base has not yet demonstrated translation to improved clinical behaviors or patient outcomes. Future research should prioritize longitudinal and system-level evaluation with validated behavioral and patient-level outcome measures.