Article written by Sue Lawrence and Nol Reverda, Directors of the Macess programme. The validation of awards and courses within higher education has traditionally and, to a great extent, continues to be a national issue, with each country using its own protocol for determining standards and academic levels, and validating courses according to its nationally recognised and agreed system. Institutions in some countries, however, are able to validate courses which are delivered in an institution in another country. This practice has led to some useful collaborative arrangements in developing European postgraduate programmes for the social professions, particularly in countries where education for social professionals takes place outside of the university system, for example, in The Netherlands. Largely as a result of such collaboration, facilitated by the Erasmus programme, there is now a proliferation of courses for social professionals, which have ‘European’ in their title or as a major component of the course content. What, then, makes a programme ‘European’?
Background: Health care practitioners' knowledge and attitudes influence patients’ beliefs and health outcomes in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. It is unclear to what extent physiotherapists undertaking a postgraduate master in manual therapy (MT students) possess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience to be able to apply the biopsychosocial model in patients with MSK pain. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward pain neuroscience in MT students. Design: A cross-sectional study. Method: Self-reported knowledge and attitudes were measured among students (n = 662) at baseline and in all years of the MT postgraduate programs in the Netherlands. The Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain questionnaire (KNAP) was used as a primary measure. Difference in KNAP-scores between baseline (0), year 1, year 2 and year 3 was tested using a one-way ANOVA (hypothesis: 0 < 1
In their postgraduate educational programs, residents are immersed in a complex workplace. To improve the quality of the training program, it is necessary to gain insight into the factors that influence the process of learning in the workplace. An exploratory study was carried out among 56 nursing home physicians in training (NHPT) and 62 supervisors. They participated in semi-structured group interviews, in which they discussed four questions regarding workplace learning. Qualitative analysis of the data was performed to establish a framework of factors that influence workplace learning, within which framework comparisons between groups could be made. A framework consisting of 56 factors was identified. These were grouped into 10 categories, which in turn were grouped into four domains: the working environment, educational factors in the workplace, NHPT characteristics and supervisor characteristics. Of the factors that influence workplace learning, social integration was cited most often. Supervisors more often reported educational factors and NHPTs more frequently reported impediments. Conclusion: The educational relationship may be improved when supervisors explicitly discuss the learning process and learning conditions within the workplace, thereby focusing on the NHPT needs. Special attention should be paid to the aspects of social integration. A good start could be to answer the question regarding how to establish a basic feeling of 'knowing where you are' and 'how to go about things' to make residents feel comfortable enough to focus on the learning process.
