Doctors' attitudes to, beliefs about, and experiences of the regulation of professional competence: A scoping review protocol

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Wiese, Anél
dc.contributor.author Galvin, Emer
dc.contributor.author Merrett, Charlotte
dc.contributor.author Korotchikova, Irina
dc.contributor.author Slattery, Dubhfeasa
dc.contributor.author Prihodova, Lucia
dc.contributor.author Hoey, Hilary
dc.contributor.author O'Shaughnessy, Ann
dc.contributor.author Cotter, Jantze
dc.contributor.author O'Farrell, Janet
dc.contributor.author Horgan, Mary
dc.contributor.author Bennett, Deirdre
dc.date.accessioned 2019-10-14T22:01:22Z
dc.date.available 2019-10-14T22:01:22Z
dc.date.issued 2019-08-22
dc.identifier.citation Wiese, A., Galvin, E., Merrett, C., Korotchikova, I., Slattery, D., Prihodova, L., Hoey, H., O’Shaughnessy, A., Cotter, J., O’Farrell, J., Horgan, M. and Bennett, D. (2019) 'Doctors’ attitudes to, beliefs about, and experiences of the regulation of professional competence: a scoping review protocol', Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 213 (5pp.). DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1132-3 en
dc.identifier.volume 8 en
dc.identifier.issued 1 en
dc.identifier.startpage 1 en
dc.identifier.endpage 5 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10468/8759
dc.identifier.doi 10.1186/s13643-019-1132-3 en
dc.description.abstract Background: Historically, individual doctors were responsible for maintaining their own professional competence. More recently, changing patient expectations, debate about the appropriateness of professional self-regulation, and high-profile cases of malpractice have led to a move towards formal regulation of professional competence (RPC). Such programmes require doctors to demonstrate that they are fit to practice, through a variety of means. Participation in RPC is now part of many doctors’ professional lives, yet it remains a highly contested area. Cost, limited evidence of impact, and lack of relevance to practice are amongst the criticisms cited. Doctors’ attitudes towards RPC, their beliefs about its objectives and effectiveness, and their experiences of trying to meet its requirements can impact engagement with the process. We aim to conduct a scoping review to map the empirical literature in this area, to summarise the key findings, and to identify gaps for future research. Methods: We will conduct our review following the six phases outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, and Levac. We will search seven electronic databases: Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Social Sciences Full Text, and SocINDEX for relevant publications, and the websites of medical regulatory and educational organisations for documents. We will undertake backward and forward citation tracking of selected studies and will consult with international experts regarding key publications. Two researchers will independently screen papers for inclusion and extract data using a piloted data extraction tool. Data will be collated to provide a descriptive summary of the literature. A thematic analysis of the key findings will be presented as a narrative summary of the literature. Discussion: We believe that this review will be of value to those tasked with the design and implementation of RPC programmes, helping them to maximise doctors’ commitment and engagement, and to researchers, pointing to areas that would benefit from further enquiry. This research is timely; internationally existing programmes are evolving, new programmes are being initiated, and many jurisdictions do not yet have programmes in place. There is an opportunity for learning across different programmes and from the experiences of established programmes. Our review will support that learning. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO does not register scoping reviews. en
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher BioMed Central Ltd. en
dc.relation.uri https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-1132-3
dc.rights © The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. en
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ en
dc.subject Regulation of professional competence en
dc.subject Scoping review en
dc.subject Revalidation en
dc.subject Recertification en
dc.subject Maintenance of certification en
dc.title Doctors' attitudes to, beliefs about, and experiences of the regulation of professional competence: A scoping review protocol en
dc.type Article (peer-reviewed) en
dc.internal.authorcontactother Emer Galvin, Medical Education Unit, School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. +353-21-490-3000 Email:emer.galvin@ucc.ie en
dc.internal.availability Full text available en
dc.description.version Published Version en
dc.contributor.funder Health Research Board en
dc.description.status Peer reviewed en
dc.identifier.journaltitle Systematic Reviews en
dc.internal.IRISemailaddress emer.galvin@ucc.ie en
dc.identifier.articleid 213 en
dc.identifier.eissn 2046-4053


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
This website uses cookies. By using this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with the UCC Privacy and Cookies Statement. For more information about cookies and how you can disable them, visit our Privacy and Cookies statement