4.3 Article

A European survey of professional bodies representing occupational medicine specialists

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 366-370

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqs061

关键词

Associations; medical education; occupational medicine; societies; survey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Professional societies and associations of occupational medicine (OM) play a key role in the development and cohesion of the speciality including its interaction with other disciplines. Aims To understand the way the speciality operates across Europe, a survey of the current European professional bodies of OM specialists was conducted on behalf of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) section of OM. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted asking country delegates of the UEMS section of OM to complete a questionnaire exploring the characteristics and activities of their professional associations/societies. Results Twenty-four countries in total were contacted, with a response rate of 92%. In all, 78% of organizations were open to non-occupational physicians, nurses or other occupational health professionals; all except two had a fee under 200 per year, and 65% provided services with no dedicated administrative support. All organizations provided educational events, in addition to other services including website support, production of position documents, practice guidelines and quality assurance of professional practice. Conclusions The European associations of OM specialists deliver a wide range of services and educational activities despite limited resources. Further research is needed to explore the potential strategic and political effects associated with differing membership models, assess the nature and standard of medical education provided by the different organizations, and identify areas for collaboration within Europe. Future actions within OM associations would support the development of the speciality within Europe.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据