Five years on: analysis of university lecturers' experiences of the French government's health promotion education program.
Education
Health curriculum
Health promotion
Health students
Prevention
University lecturers’ experiences
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Aug 2024
07 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
30
01
2024
accepted:
09
07
2024
medline:
8
8
2024
pubmed:
8
8
2024
entrez:
7
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The National Health Promotion Intervention Program by Student (HPIPS) is a French government educational program introduced in 2018, aiming at developing all health students' health promotion knowledge and abilities, as well as implementing health promotion interventions for specific subpopulations in the general public. Its pedagogical framework was elaborated in 2018 and then evaluated by the French Council for Public Health in 2022, highlighting certain difficulties for the program to be homogeneously implemented in France. The aim of this study was to explore and describe the experiences and feedback of university lecturers in charge of this HPIPS training. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HPIPS lecturers from various health fields and from French universities, and a qualitative content analysis was carried out. Fourteen interviews were conducted during the autumn of 2022 with HPIPS program university lecturers including five doctors, three dentists, two nurses, two pharmacists, one midwife, and one physiotherapist from eight different towns belonging to six regions. Depending on the professional background, the component, and the local resources available, the teaching experience varied from one lecturer to another. A number of difficulties arose in setting up this educational program and complying with the latter legislation. The work overload was considerable, and the lecturers' heavy commitments some lecturers to be discouraged, especially since some lecturers were not trained in health promotion abilities. Although interprofessionality was a strength of this HPIPS, it was also its main challenge. Pedagogical innovations were developed, notably through the use of digital technology; cross-disciplinary collaboration was established; and lecturers-students specific boundaries have emerged thanks to this health promotion project. In France, setting up the HPIPS rapidly was experienced as a real pedagogical challenge for the interviewed university lecturers. While most of them noted the positive and beneficial contributions made by the introduction of prevention and health promotion intervention skills for health students, they also shared recommendations in order to match the ambitions and increase the HPIPS impact on the development of a culture of prevention and health promotion among health students.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The National Health Promotion Intervention Program by Student (HPIPS) is a French government educational program introduced in 2018, aiming at developing all health students' health promotion knowledge and abilities, as well as implementing health promotion interventions for specific subpopulations in the general public. Its pedagogical framework was elaborated in 2018 and then evaluated by the French Council for Public Health in 2022, highlighting certain difficulties for the program to be homogeneously implemented in France. The aim of this study was to explore and describe the experiences and feedback of university lecturers in charge of this HPIPS training.
METHODS
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HPIPS lecturers from various health fields and from French universities, and a qualitative content analysis was carried out.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fourteen interviews were conducted during the autumn of 2022 with HPIPS program university lecturers including five doctors, three dentists, two nurses, two pharmacists, one midwife, and one physiotherapist from eight different towns belonging to six regions. Depending on the professional background, the component, and the local resources available, the teaching experience varied from one lecturer to another. A number of difficulties arose in setting up this educational program and complying with the latter legislation. The work overload was considerable, and the lecturers' heavy commitments some lecturers to be discouraged, especially since some lecturers were not trained in health promotion abilities. Although interprofessionality was a strength of this HPIPS, it was also its main challenge. Pedagogical innovations were developed, notably through the use of digital technology; cross-disciplinary collaboration was established; and lecturers-students specific boundaries have emerged thanks to this health promotion project.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In France, setting up the HPIPS rapidly was experienced as a real pedagogical challenge for the interviewed university lecturers. While most of them noted the positive and beneficial contributions made by the introduction of prevention and health promotion intervention skills for health students, they also shared recommendations in order to match the ambitions and increase the HPIPS impact on the development of a culture of prevention and health promotion among health students.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39113000
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05755-x
pii: 10.1186/s12909-024-05755-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
847Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Journal officiel de la république française. Arrêté du 12 juin 2018 relatif au service sanitaire pour les étudiants en santé [Internet]. [cité 26 mai 2022]. Disponible sur: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000037051110/ .
Journal officiel de la république française. Décret no 2018 – 472 du 12 juin 2018 relatif au service sanitaire des étudiants en santé [Internet]. [cité 26 mai 2022]. Disponible sur: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/download/pdf?id=TAFqqYQhHL4aa-kK9SJXz59zMW9r0VCLrkV8AmAAT3o =.
Anderson K, Gupta S, Nava Buenfil F, Verrinder G. Using experiential learning and authentic assessments to support students to become competent health promotion practitioners. Health Promot J Aust off J Aust Assoc Health Promot Prof oct. 2022;33(1Suppl 1):27–34.
HCSP. Évaluation du service sanitaire des étudiants en santé - Rapport final [Internet]. Rapport de l’HCSP. Paris: Haut Conseil de la Santé Publique; 2022 juin [cité 29 mai 2024]. Disponible sur: https://www.hcsp.fr/explore.cgi/avisrapportsdomaine?clefr=1244 .
Fortin MF, Gagnon J. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche: méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. 2016.
Paillé P, Mucchielli A. L’analyse qualitative en sciences Humaines et sociales. 5e éd. Malakoff: Armand Colin; 2021. (Collection U).
Seidman I. Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Teachers College; 2006. p. 162.
Given LM. éditeur. The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, Calif: Sage; 2008. p. 2.
doi: 10.4135/9781412963909
Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med 1982 janv. 2022;292:114523.
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. éditeurs. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2000. p. 1065.
Balard F, Kivits J, Schrecker C, Voléry I. Chapitre 9. L’analyse qualitative en santé. In: Les recherches qualitatives en santé [Internet]. Paris: Armand Colin; 2016 [cité 24 mai 2024]. pp. 167–85. (Collection U). Disponible sur: https://www.cairn.info/les-recherches-qualitatives-en-sante--9782200611897-p-167.htm .
Fayard A, Marchand AC. La place de la promotion de la santé et de l’éducation pour la santé dans le système de santé français. Promot Educ mars. 2008;15(1suppl):31–4.
doi: 10.1177/1025382308093995
Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé. Stratégie nationale de santé 2018–2022 [Internet]. [cité 23 août 2022]. Disponible sur: https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/dossier_sns_2017_vdefpost-consult.pdf .
Chapron A, Metten MA, Maury A, Prestel T, Bajeux E, Andres É, et al. Service sanitaire des étudiants en santé : ancrer l’éducation pour la santé dans le cursus des étudiants. Santé Publique. 2021;33(3):407–13.
doi: 10.3917/spub.213.0407
Mahieu C. Retour d’expérience sur l’introduction du service sanitaire des étudiants en santé dans la formation de maïeutique en France. Étude Exploratoire Des perceptions des enseignantes. Pédagogie Médicale. 2022;23(2):97–106.
doi: 10.1051/pmed/2022007
Picard N. Le numérique pour la pédagogie en sciences de la santé: intégrer les technologies pour améliorer nos pratiques. Pédagogie Médicale Nov. 2018;19(4):151–3.
doi: 10.1051/pmed/2019028
Prigent O, Bureau A, Aromatario O, Cambon L. Impacts et mise en œuvre du service sanitaire des étudiants en santé (SSES) français: étude de cas dans deux académies françaises. Glob Health Promot juin. 2022;29(2):107–15.
doi: 10.1177/17579759211062136
Biggs J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ oct. 1996;32(3):347–64.
doi: 10.1007/BF00138871
Pelaccia T. Comment mieux superviser les étudiants en sciences de la santé dans leurs stages et dans leurs activités de recherche ? Enseignants, formateurs, professionnels de la santé. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck supérieur; 2018. (Guides pratiques).
Sanches C, QuillÉre L. Le service sanitaire, vers une nouvelle logique dans la promotion de la santé. Soins juin. 2020;65(846):43–4.
doi: 10.1016/S0038-0814(20)30117-1
Rootman I, Gordon-El-Bihbety D. A vision for a health literate Canada: report of the Expert Panel on Health Literacy. Ottawa, Ont.: Canadian Public Health Association; 2008.
Le Roux E, Mari Muro M, Mognon K, Saïd M, Caillavet V, Matheron S, et al. A governmental program to encourage medical students to deliver primary prevention: experiment and evaluation in a French faculty of medicine. BMC Med Educ déc. 2021;21(1):47.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02472-z
Poumay M, Tardif J, Georges F. Organiser La formation à partir des compétences: un pari gagnant pour l’apprentissage dans le supérieur. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck supérieur; 2017. (Pédagogies en développement).
Drapeau M. Les critères de scientificité en recherche qualitative. Prat Psychol mars. 2004;10(1):79–86.
Blanchet A, Gotman A. L’entretien. 2017.