The impact of socially-accountable health professional education: A systematic review of the literature

Figures & data

Table

Practice points

Collaborative partnerships with communities, equitable selection criteria, and community-engaged placements in underserved areas positively impact the learning and attitudes of students. Students of socially accountable schools were more likely to stay in rural areas and serve disadvantaged communities and were often more skilled than students from more traditional schools to meet the needs of underserved communities. The findings of this literature review guide schools on the inputs likely to maximize their social accountability and increase their impact on students, local health workforce and local communities.

Table 1. Characteristics of database search for systematic review.

Databases searched	Key search words	MESH terms
Medline & Medline in Process (Ovid) PubMed ERIC (Ovid SP) CINAHL Scopus Web of Science Informit ProQuest (Health & Medicine, Education, Social Sciences) PAIS International Google Scholar	Impact; health systems; health indicators; inequities; disparities; socially accountable; community-based learning/education; longitudinal integrated clerkship; community oriented medical education; community engaged medical Education; Socially Accountable Health Professional Education; Community Based Education; Community Based Learning; and student-community relationships.	Social Responsibility Education, Medical Health Education Schools, Medical Medically underserved Area

Table 2. Program evaluation logic model.

	Description
Inputs	School Philosophy – values (social justice, equity)
Activities/outputs	Curriculum, faculty, pedagogy, community service, student attitudes and learning.
Short term outcomes/impact	Impact on health workforce
Intermediate and longer term outcomes/impact	Impact on the community
Long-term outcomes/impact	Impact on health outcomes

Table 3. Critical appraisal criteria questions.

Is the questions/hypothesis stated clearly and relevant to the research question?

What is the study design and is it appropriate for the research question?

How were participants selected and is the population appropriate?

Has the impact on the sample population been presented?

Did the author answer the study question appropriately?

Are the studies strengths highlighted?

Are the limitations discussed with suggested steps that may improve future results?

Did they suggest further study they will undertake?

Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol for study selection process (Moher et al. 2009).

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals Intern Med. 151:264–269.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar