Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Medical, Student Research Committed, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Considering the importance of virtual professionalism and professional ethics
in medical sciences, and the necessity to pay attention to this issue and its impact on medical
professionalism, this study aimed to build a professional culture questionnaire in a virtual environment
for students of medical sciences in Iran.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an exploratory, sequential, mixed‑methods research which
was conducted in three sections. In the first section, the concept of e‑professionalism in medical
sciences was analyzed using the hybrid concept analysis in the theoretical work, field work, and final
analysis stages in order to extract information related to the concept. In the second section, an item
of the questionnaire was designed based on the concept, reviewed texts, and related questionnaires,
in the third section, psychometric properties of a questionnaires were evaluated.
RESULTS: Totally, 39 items were included in the initial pool, which reduced to 33 items in the final
questionnaire after reviewing the psychometric properties. Factor analyses led to extraction of five
factors including appraisal of e‑professionalism compliance with the laws and regulations governing
cyberspace, individual professionalism, knowledge management, respect for professionalism in
interpersonal and group rules, and complying with ethics in the use of cyberspace. The internal
consistency of questionnaire was also confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.78, also all
factor correlations absed stability were significant (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: An exploratory sequential study in this study led to the extraction of five factors
and development of a 33‑item questionnaire in e‑professionalism. As results and analysis of the
psychometric properties and validation of each item, this questionnaire is valid and reliable for the
assessment of levels of e‑professionalism in medical sciences in Iran.
Keywords
- de Marcos Ortega L, Barchino Plata R, Jiménez Rodríguez ML,
Hilera González JR, Martínez Herráiz JJ, Gutiérrez de Mesa JA,
et al. Using m‑learning on nursing courses to improve learning.
Comput Inform Nurs 2011;29:311‑7.
2. McLeodRP, MaysMZ. Back to the future: Personal digital assistants
in nursing education. Nurs Clin North Am 2008;43:583‑92, vii.
3. Chipps J, Pimmer C, Brysiewicz P, Walters F, Linxen S, Ndebele T,
et al. Using mobile phones and social media to facilitate education
and support for rural‑based midwives in South Africa. Curationis
2015;38:1500.
4. Clay CA. Exploring the use of mobile technologies for the
acquisition of clinical skills. Nurse Educ Today 2011;31:582‑6.
5. Young P, Moore E, Griffiths G, Raine R, Stewart R, Cownie M,
et al. Help is just a text away: The use of short message service
texting to provide an additional means of support for health
care students during practice placements. Nurse Educ Today
2010;30:118‑23.
6. Westmoreland GR, Counsell SR, Tu W, Wu J, Litzelman DK.
Web‑based training in geriatrics for medical residents:
A randomized controlled trial using standardized patients to
assess outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58:1163‑9.
7. Welke TM, LeBlanc VR, Savoldelli GL, Joo HS, Chandra DB,
Crabtree NA, et al. Personalized oral debriefing versus
standardized multimedia instruction after patient crisis
simulation. Anesth Analg 2009;109:183‑9.
8. Roh KH, Park HA. A meta‑analysis on the effectiveness of
computer‑based education in nursing. Healthc Inform Res
2010;16:149‑57.
9. Feng J, Chang Y, Chang H, Erdley WS, Lin C, Chang Y. Systematic
review of effectiveness of situated e‑learning on medical
and nursing education. Worldviews Evidence‑Based Nurs
2013;10:174‑83.
10. Zhou Y, Yang Y, Liu L, Zeng Z. Effectiveness of mobile learning
in medical education: A systematic review. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da
Xue Xue Bao 2018;38:1395‑400.
11. Kolko BE, Rose EJ, Johnson EJ. Communication as
information‑seeking: The case for mobile social software for
developing regions. In: Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on World Wide Web. ACM DI Digital Library 2007.
p. 863‑72.
12. Mickan S, Tilson JK, Atherton H, Roberts NW, Heneghan C.
Evidence of effectiveness of health care professionals using
handheld computers: A scoping review of systematic reviews.
J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e212.
13. Abim F, Acp‑Asim F. Medical professionalism in the new
millennium: A physician charter. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:170.
14. de Marcos Ortega L, Barchino Plata R, Jiménez Rodríguez ML,
Hilera González JR, Martínez Herráiz JJ, Gutiérrez de Mesa JA,
et al. Using m‑learning on nursing courses to improve learning.
Comput Inform Nurs 2011;29:311‑7.
15. Omurtag K, Turek P. Incorporating social media into practice:
A blueprint for reproductive health providers. Clin Obstet
Gynecol 2013;56:463‑70.
16. Savel RH, Munro CL. Scalpel, stethoscope, iPad: The future is
now in the intensive care unit. Am J Crit Care 2011;20:275‑7.
17. Greysen SR, Kind T, Chretien KC. Online professionalism and
the mirror of social media. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25:1227‑9.
18. Hamm MP, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Scott SD, Given LM,
et al. Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping
review. BMJ open. 2013;3.
19. Hawn C. Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: How
Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health
care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:361‑8.
20. Freidson E. Professionalism, the third logic: On the practice of
knowledge. Wiley: University of Chicago Press; 2001.
21. Fenwick T. Social media and medical professionalism: Rethinking
the debate and the way forward. Acad Med 2014;89:1331‑4.
22. Gevertz D, Greenwood G. Crafting an effective social media policy
for healthcare employees. Health Law 2009;22:28.
23. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C BL. Editorial Board of the
Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Updated method
guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration
Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1290.
24. Schwartz‑Barcott D. An expansion and elaboration of the hybrid
model of concept development. Concept Dev Nurs Found Tech
2nd ed. Philadelphia:Saunders 2000.p.129-59.
25. Furlan AD, Malmivaara A, Chou R, Maher CG, Deyo RA,
Schoene M, et al. 2015 updated method guideline for systematic
reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group. Spine (Phila Pa
1976) 2015;40:1660‑73.
26. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Pers
Psychol 1975;28:563‑75.
27. Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity
ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval
Couns Dev 2014;47:79‑86.
28. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator
of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs
Health 2007;30:459‑67.
29. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity.
Personnel Psych 1975;28:563‑75. - 30. Rubio DM, Berg‑Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying
content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social
work research. Soc Work Res 2003;27:94‑104.
31. Krishna H KK. Reliability estimation in generalized inverted
exponential distribution with progressively type II censored
sample. R J Stat Comput Simul 2013;83:1007‑19.
32. De Boer MR, Moll AC, De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Völker‑Dieben HJ,
van Rens GH. Psychometric properties of vision‑related quality
of life questionnaires: A systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol
Opt 2004;24:257‑73.
33. Ness GL, Sheehan AH, Snyder ME, Jordan J, Cunningham JE,
Gettig JP. Graduating pharmacy students’ perspectives on
e‑professionalism and social media. Am J Pharm Educ 2013;77:146.
34. Cleary M, Ferguson C, Jackson D, Watson R. Editorial: Social
media and the new e‑professionalism. Contemp Nurse
2013;45:152‑4.
35. Cain J. Social media in health care: The case for organizational
policy and employee education. Am J Health Syst Pharm
2011;68:1036‑40.
)