PubMed · 5409034
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G Devereux. [Separation: subject and observer].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5409034/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The first section in the current article offered several themes that characterize behavioral and social science cancer screening research to date and are likely to be relevant for studying the adoption and utilization of future screening technologies. The themes discussed included the link between epidemiologic surveillance and the priorities of intervention, the "at-risk" perspective that often guides research on screening and initiatives to redress disparities, the need to monitor the diversification of personal screening histories, the range of intervention groups and study designs that can be tested, the importance of including key questions in population-level surveys and national health objectives, and the desirability of clarifying the characteristics of cancer screening that make it an attractive field of study in its own right. The second section commented on emerging areas in which more research will allow additional lessons to be learned. The other articles in the current supplement presented many more lessons in a variety of areas, and other authors are encouraged to write similar articles that help to identify general themes characterizing cancer screening research.
INTRODUCTION: The increasing importance accorded the social and behavioural sciences in medical education presents opportunities for developing new and innovative forms of teaching and learning in this field. Yet social and behavioural scientists often feel isolated and marginalized. This research was designed to build a network of such practitioners to share and compare current practice, and to develop better models and resources. METHODS: Questionnaire survey and workshop discussions describe current practice among social and behavioural scientists in UK medical education, and identify current and future issues. RESULTS: Most UK medical curricula feature a significant social and behavioural science component, often in multidisciplinary contexts. Questions of core content, and how this relates to desired learning outcomes, particularly in the attitudinal sphere, remain unresolved. Identity problems result from differing perspectives of medics and social and behavioural scientists, staffing constraints, assessment regimes, and relationships with external examiners. DISCUSSION: This project identified barriers and opportunities for providing adequate training in the social and behavioural sciences in medical schools. Some of the barriers are common to higher education generally. Through our network, a database of core cases and assessments can be developed that would be available to all for teaching purposes. CONCLUSION: Social and behavioural scientists involved in medical education show commonality and difference in the extent and scope of their input. While they have made great progress, there remains much to achieve.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.