Implementation and utilization of gynecological teaching associate and male urogenital teaching associate programs: a scoping review.

Genitourinary examination Genitourinary teaching associate Gynecological teaching associate Male urogenital teaching associate Pelvic examination Physical examination instruction Professional patient Rectal/prostate examination Standardized patient Standardized patient methodology

Journal

Advances in simulation (London, England)
ISSN: 2059-0628
Titre abrégé: Adv Simul (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101700425

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 May 2021
Historique:
received: 19 10 2020
accepted: 07 05 2021
entrez: 21 5 2021
pubmed: 22 5 2021
medline: 22 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Gynecological Teaching Associates (GTAs) and Male Urogenital Teaching Associates (MUTAs) are individuals trained to instruct health professional learners with their own body to conduct accurate, patient-centered breast, pelvic, urogenital, rectal, and/or prostate examinations. Evidence indicates that this results in improvements in technical competence and communication skills, but there is wide variability to how such programs are implemented and engaged within the curriculum. In this scoping review, we mapped evidence regarding (1) how GTA/MUTA programs are utilized with health professional learners, (2) how GTA/MUTA programs are implemented using the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP) as a framework, and (3) what broad outcomes are addressed in publications. PubMed, ERIC, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Sociological Abstracts were searched for all publications addressing instruction of physical examinations with a GTA/MUTA and/or administration of GTA/MUTA programs. Studies were charted in tandem until consensus was identified and then charted individually, using an iterative process. The scoping review protocol was registered prospectively. One hundred and one articles were identified, and nearly all highlighted positive results regarding GTA/MUTA programs. Most studies addressed medical students within the USA and Europe. During instructional sessions, three (SD=1.4) learners worked with each GTA/MUTA and an average of 32 min (SD=17) was allocated per learner. GTAs/MUTA instructed both independently (n=33) and in pairs (n=51). Thirty-eight articles provided detailed information consistent with one or more of the Domains of the ASPE SOBP, with six providing specific information regarding safe work environments. While studies demonstrate consistently positive outcomes for learners, there is wide variability in implementation patterns. This variability may impact learning outcomes and impact both physical and psychological safety for GTAs/MUTAs and learners. Terminology used to refer to GTAs/MUTAs is inconsistent and may obscure relevant publications. Additional research is indicated to explore the pedagogical variables that result in positive learning outcomes and examine methods to ensure physical and psychological safety of GTAs/MUTAs and learners. https://osf.io/x9w2u/ .

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Gynecological Teaching Associates (GTAs) and Male Urogenital Teaching Associates (MUTAs) are individuals trained to instruct health professional learners with their own body to conduct accurate, patient-centered breast, pelvic, urogenital, rectal, and/or prostate examinations. Evidence indicates that this results in improvements in technical competence and communication skills, but there is wide variability to how such programs are implemented and engaged within the curriculum. In this scoping review, we mapped evidence regarding (1) how GTA/MUTA programs are utilized with health professional learners, (2) how GTA/MUTA programs are implemented using the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE) Standards of Best Practice (SOBP) as a framework, and (3) what broad outcomes are addressed in publications.
METHODS METHODS
PubMed, ERIC, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Sociological Abstracts were searched for all publications addressing instruction of physical examinations with a GTA/MUTA and/or administration of GTA/MUTA programs. Studies were charted in tandem until consensus was identified and then charted individually, using an iterative process. The scoping review protocol was registered prospectively.
RESULTS RESULTS
One hundred and one articles were identified, and nearly all highlighted positive results regarding GTA/MUTA programs. Most studies addressed medical students within the USA and Europe. During instructional sessions, three (SD=1.4) learners worked with each GTA/MUTA and an average of 32 min (SD=17) was allocated per learner. GTAs/MUTA instructed both independently (n=33) and in pairs (n=51). Thirty-eight articles provided detailed information consistent with one or more of the Domains of the ASPE SOBP, with six providing specific information regarding safe work environments.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
While studies demonstrate consistently positive outcomes for learners, there is wide variability in implementation patterns. This variability may impact learning outcomes and impact both physical and psychological safety for GTAs/MUTAs and learners. Terminology used to refer to GTAs/MUTAs is inconsistent and may obscure relevant publications. Additional research is indicated to explore the pedagogical variables that result in positive learning outcomes and examine methods to ensure physical and psychological safety of GTAs/MUTAs and learners.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
https://osf.io/x9w2u/ .

Identifiants

pubmed: 34016185
doi: 10.1186/s41077-021-00172-2
pii: 10.1186/s41077-021-00172-2
pmc: PMC8138924
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

19

Références

J Med Educ. 1979 Jul;54(7):585-7
pubmed: 448719
BMC Med Educ. 2016 Dec 16;16(1):314
pubmed: 27986086
Med Teach. 2007 May;29(4):e93-9
pubmed: 17786738
J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972). 2003 Fall;58(4):217-20; discussion 221-2
pubmed: 14640251
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Jun 15;131(4):367-73
pubmed: 665744
J Cancer Educ. 2002 Fall;17(3):121-3
pubmed: 12243215
Med Teach. 2015 Jan;37(1):47-52
pubmed: 24935727
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Cult Med Psychiatry. 2011 Jun;35(2):134-62
pubmed: 21567264
Annu Conf Res Med Educ. 1979 Nov;18:59-64
pubmed: 496354
Med Educ. 2015 Dec;49(12):1197-206
pubmed: 26611185
HEC Forum. 2020 Jun;32(2):125-145
pubmed: 32152870
Adv Simul (Lond). 2017 Jun 27;2:10
pubmed: 29450011
J Reprod Med. 1974 Apr;12(4):163-4
pubmed: 4822892
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2020 Jan;29(1):13-20
pubmed: 31513467
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Feb 01;15:7
pubmed: 25638247
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Jan 1;151(1):58-60
pubmed: 3966506
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):47-54
pubmed: 16962909
BJOG. 2006 Aug;113(8):890-5
pubmed: 16907935
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Can J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jul;26(7):441-4
pubmed: 22803019
J Med Educ. 1974 Dec;49(12):1174-8
pubmed: 4154379
Med Educ. 2010 Apr;44(4):347-57
pubmed: 20444070
Simul Healthc. 2012 Apr;7(2):95-101
pubmed: 22333882
J Reprod Med. 1988 Jan;33(1):22-4
pubmed: 3351802
J Health Care Law Policy. 2005;8(2):240-63
pubmed: 16471023
Med Educ. 2008 Apr;42(4):350-8
pubmed: 18298448

Auteurs

Holly Hopkins (H)

Eastern Michigan University School of Nursing, 311 Marshall Building, Ypsilanti, MI, 48197, USA. hhopkin3@emich.edu.

Chelsea Weaks (C)

Standardized Patient Educator, GTA Program, Eastern Virginia Medical School Sentara Center for Simulation and Immersive Learning, 651 Colley Avenue, PO Box 1980, Norfolk, VA, 23501-1980, USA.

Elise Napier (E)

Ferris State University, 1201 S. State Street, Big Rapids, MI, 49307, USA.

Classifications MeSH