4.4 Article

EFOMP policy statement 18: Medical physics education for the non-physics healthcare professions

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102602

关键词

EFOMP policy statement; Education of healthcare professions; Non -physics healthcare professions; Medical physics curriculum development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although Medical Physics educators have historically contributed to the education of the non-physics healthcare professions, their role was not studied systematically until 2009 when EFOMP set up a group to research the issue. The group conducted a literature review, carried out a survey, and proposed a development model for the role based on the research findings. A comprehensive curriculum development model was subsequently published, and plans were made to develop a policy statement.
Although Medical Physics educators have historically contributed to the education of the non-physics healthcare professions, their role was not studied in a systematic manner. In 2009, EFOMP set up a group to research the issue. In their first paper, the group carried out an extensive literature review regarding physics teaching for the non-physics healthcare professions. Their second paper reported the results of a pan-European survey of physics curricula delivered to the healthcare professions and a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) audit of the role. The group's third paper presented a strategic development model for the role, based on the SWOT data. A comprehensive curriculum development model was subsequently published, whilst plans were laid to develop the present policy statement. This policy statement presents mission and vision statements for Medical Physicists teaching non-physics users of medical devices and physical agents, best practices for teaching non -physics healthcare professionals, a stepwise process for curriculum development (content, method of delivery and assessment), and summary recommendations based on the aforementioned research studies.

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

4.4
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