Rapid scoping review
According to the search strategy, nine documents were suitable for this project (Fig. 3) [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. A summary of the findings of these studies and their role in developing this program is shown in Table 1. Briefly, two studies were used to collect “SDH needs” [10, 13], one study was used to investigate “the current status and the gaps” [11], one study was used to find “methods and learning activities” [12], three studies were used to collect “SDH concepts” [13, 16, 17], and two studies were used to collect “SDH indicators and examples” for designing the raw form of SDH history-taking [14, 18]. From another point of view, the study that was used to investigate “the current status and the gaps” [11], was also used to find the problems and solutions regarding the design phase of the action research. Accordingly, growing interest in teaching SDH in medical education, small number of articles in this regard up to now, limited SDH curricular dissemination, lack of acceptable tools regarding teaching SDH, and needs for identifying and evaluating the effective instructions and teaching frameworks were mentioned. In this regard, it was necessary to have a tool for SDH history taking as a solution.
PRISMA flowchart for rapid scoping review
Expert panel meetings
The results of the expert panel meetings and brainstorming were as follows.
Meeting I: The program and the significance of the project were presented to the experts. The current situation in medical schools, the problems and the solutions were discussed. Finally, a roadmap was designed for the study phases and how the scoping review should be done.
Meeting II: The results of the scoping review were presented to the experts. The preliminary program was designed according to the mentioned problems such as lack of acceptable tools regarding teaching SDH, and needs for identifying and evaluating the effective instructions and teaching frameworks. Then, a list of SDH extracted from the scoping review was presented and all the examples and indicators were discussed one-by-one. Finally, a 24-item checklist was prepared according to the presented items and the revisions suggested by the panel for the validity of the checklist.
Meeting III: The results of the first round of the expert panel checklist assessment were presented to the experts. They investigated the mean and SDs of the scores and gave suggestions regarding the removal, addition, integration or revision of the items. The results of this meeting were considered for the second round of the expert panel checklist assessment.
Meeting IV: Finally, the results of the second round of expert panel checklist assessment (Table 2) were presented to the experts. They gave suggestions for final revision of the items in term of clarity. In addition, a guide for trainees was prepared for use of this SDH history-taking form (supplementary material 1).
Expert panel checklist assessment
Round one: A total of 24 items were selected for this round. The overall absolute agreement was 0.657 (95% CI: 0.531 – 0.755) which was significantly higher than 0.5 (P = 0.005). However, there were some items with a mean score of less than three. Therefore, a revision was necessary for the SDH history-taking checklist.
Round two: A total of 21 items were selected for this round. The overall absolute agreement was 0.704 (95% CI: 0.587 – 0.793) which was significantly higher than 0.5 (P < 0.001). The range of scores was 3.5 – 4.83. Therefore, the present version of the SDH history-taking checklist seemed to be suitable for this phase of the project. The complete results of the final version of the SDH history-taking checklist (considering the suggested revisions of the meeting round four) are presented (Table 2).
link