Skip to main content

Development of an interprofessional task-based learning program in the field of occupational health: a content validity study

Abstract

Objective

One of the duties of the educational system is to provide situations in which students learn the tasks corresponding to their future careers in an interprofessional team. This study was designed to develop an interprofessional task-based training program.

Methods

This was a curriculum development study conducted by content validity methodology in two stages: 1) ‘framework development’ which resulted in the creation of the framework items; and 2) ‘evaluation of the framework’ (judgment and quantification). The first stage consisted of task identification, generation of sub-tasks, and assimilation of items into a usable format. The second stage consisted of the judgment –quantification of the content validity of items and the framework. After that, the framework of the tasks of the occupational health team was finalized in the expert panel. After explaining the tasks, a matrix for task-expected roles in the occupational health team and a matrix for task-required skills to perform each task were developed. The next step determined the appropriate teaching and assessment methods for each task. Finally, an expert panel reviewed and approved the components of the interprofessional task-based training program.

Results

Integrating the interprofessional education strategy with task-based learning was considered innovative in occupational health team training. In the development stage, 48 items were extracted, and then 35 tasks were generated in the step of identification of tasks. In the second step, 174 sub-tasks were developed. The tasks and sub-tasks were categorized into seven areas. After the stage of evaluation of the framework, 33 tasks were categorized into seven main areas, including "assessment and identification of workplace hazards" (n = 10), "control of occupational hazards" (n = 4), "determining the appropriate job position for each person" (n = 3), "occupational health examinations" (n = 6), "management of occupational/work-related diseases" (n = 5), "inter-organizational and inter-disciplinary relations, and legal judgment" (n = 3) and "education and scholarship in occupational health services" (n = 2).

Conclusion

The results of the present study can be used in developing the use of the interprofessional strategy and task-based training as two appropriate strategies for the purposeful development of learners' abilities in the fields involved in providing occupational health services in their future careers.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Interprofessional collaboration has been introduced as a necessity in providing occupational health services [1]. Occupational health services, including workplace assessment, counseling, diagnosis and treatment of occupational diseases, and follow-up services for employees at the beginning of employment, during employment, and after the emergence of occupational diseases is provided by a team [2, 3]. Understanding the role of members of the occupational health team and establishing collaborative relationships between different disciplines is very important in providing high-quality and safe services [1]. In the occupational health team, individuals from different professions consisting of occupational medicine specialists, occupational hygienists, general practitioners, ergonomists, safety experts, and in some countries, occupational nurses are brought together, and it is necessary to use interprofessional collaboration to provide occupational health services. The occupational health team needs to work together to reduce workplace hazards, improve ergonomic problems, maintain workability, prevent occupational diseases, and improve the psychological well-being of employees in the workplace [1]. Occupational medicine physicians and occupational hygienists are considered the key members of the team and they complete each other’ roles in providing occupational health services with some overlapping tasks, so they need each other for providing efficient services which require interprofessional collaboration [4]. Occupational hygiene professionals play an essential role in gathering information for occupational medicine specialists by identifying, determining, and controlling occupational exposures to chemical, biological, ergonomic, psychological, and physical hazards in the workplace. The occupational medicine specialist uses occupational exposure assessments performed by occupational hygiene professionals to diagnose and treat workers appropriately in a participatory decision-making manner [4]. Interprofessional practice in occupational health occurs when practitioners from two or more professions work together with a common purpose, commitment, and mutual respect [5]. The use of interprofessional collaborative competencies including effective communication, collaboration, recognition of members’ roles and responsibilities and team functions, leadership, and conflict management [4, 6,7,8,9,10] are essential in providing occupational health services.

The critical tasks of the team members in providing occupational health services are defined as follows: 1) Leading, supporting, and providing professional and technical advice to workers and employers; 2) Development of standards, reporting systems, and policies required to promote occupational health; 3) Occupational injury assessment and management; 4) Identification of occupational hazards and prevention of occupational diseases; 5) Promoting the general health of employees [11]. Many of these tasks are not included in the curriculum of occupational health team members, especially occupational medicine specialists. An occupational physician must be able to work with specialists in other related fields (occupational hygiene, safety, and ergonomics) and has a proper relationship with workers, employers, companies, and institutions related to occupational health services, and other organizations such as the labor office, forensic authorities, and insurance organizations. On the other hand, tasks such as promoting public and environmental health are among the sub-tasks of these people [12,13,14].

Current training in various fields involved in occupational health services is provided in a uni-professional strategy. Many studies have shown insufficient efficiency of this training strategy, which can be due to the neglect of some competencies including soft skills such as communication, teamwork, interprofessional collaboration, and professionalism in formal and informal education of learners which may ultimately affect the occupational health care system [15].

A survey conducted in Italy on the characteristics of professional activities and performance of occupational physicians addressed working relationships with other related disciplines, workers, and employers. Many participants in this study believed that various changes should be made to the curriculum to meet the real needs of occupational medicine specialists in practical work. In this study, there was a significant difference between the capabilities of different people, which indicates a possible defect and difference in the education of individuals whose training is not focused on learning based on their tasks [16]. The problems of occupational health services in Iran have pointed out the shortcomings of educational curricula and the need for change [11].

Interprofessional education is an occasion that members or students of two or more professions learn about, with, and from each other, to improve collaboration, and the quality of care and services [9, 17, 18]. It involves teachers and learners from two or more related professions who provide a collaborative learning environment. An interprofessional team consists of people from various professions with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities, but with a common goal [6]. In this method, all team members attach importance to joint decision-making [6]. Interaction and interprofessional practice are considered essential in developing collaboration in health promotion, prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation services [2]. This service provision strategy promotes the health of individuals and communities in various fields and was supported by World Health Organization [18].

In task-based learning (TBL), the focus is on learning a set of tasks performed by a healthcare provider in a real situation [19, 20]. In this method, learning takes place around performing tasks and achieving results so that learners try to understand the tasks themselves and the underlying concepts and mechanisms of each task [21]. TBL is a learning method for workplace-based training that provides a reasonable opportunity for problem-based learning and integrated multidisciplinary teaching [22].

Integrating strategies of interprofessional education and task-based learning in the educational program provides an excellent opportunity for the students to be familiar with the tasks and work issues similar to the real environment and learn how to manage them in an interprofessional team [23].

One of the methods to develop an educational program is the content validity methodology. This method can provide evidence about how relevant the elements of a framework are and to what degree they represent a purposeful structure for a specific goal [24, 25]. Face validity and logical validity are the two main components of content validity. The former indicates the validity of a measure “on its face.”, but the latter needs a process such as using an expert panel to evaluate the content validity of a measure [26]. Almanasreh et al. suggested a process for the content validity method consisting of three stages: development, judgment, quantifying and revising and reconstruction [24]. Clarity and representativeness of different items of a measure can be identified by a content validity study. Rubio et al. proposed the following stages for a content validity study: forming an expert panel and then evaluating the quantitative and qualitative indices of validity [26].

This study was designed to develop an interprofessional task-based training program by integrating the strategies of interprofessional education and task-based learning for learners in disciplines who provide occupational health services.

Materials and methods

This was a curriculum development study conducted by content validity methodology. The content validity study was used based on the steps described by Lynn [27]. This study was performed in two stages, including 1) the development stage and 2) the evaluation stage (judgment and quantification of the framework and its items) (Fig. 1).

In the current study, to develop an interprofessional task-based program, some general principles were considered.

General principles in the development of interprofessional task-based learning program

  • Task-based learning (using the principles of task-based learning): In this strategy, the learners perform the defined task in the best way to prepare for their future careers [21]. The task-based learning provides a situation for the learners to face their professional problems/issues and learn about their tasks and the method of solving the issues in a real environment. The study focuses on the task that members of the occupational health team require to conduct through interprofessional collaboration.

  • Interprofessional education (using interprofessional education as a main educational strategy in the program): Interprofessional education provides a situation in which learners in different disciplines learn how to work in an interprofessional team [6]. To achieve the interprofessional education strategy, the members of different disciplines involving in the provision of occupational health services should participate in all teaching and learning methods.

  • Interprofessional team: “The team is composed of members/learners from different health professions who have specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities” [6]. In the present study, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that may result in interprofessional behaviors and competence were developed.

Stage one: development of a framework

The stage of development consisted of 1) identification of tasks, 2) generation of sub-tasks for all tasks and 3) assimilation of items into a usable form [27].

1) Identification of tasks: In this step review of the literature and exploring, expert opinions were done. At this stage, a review was conducted to identify the interprofessional task activities of the occupational health team. The literature on the tasks, competencies and expected outcomes of the members of an occupational health team in an interprofessional collaboration was reviewed. This step reviewed existing frameworks, curricula, and programs that addressed interprofessional collaboration in the occupational health field. The competency frameworks of interprofessional collaboration were reviewed as well [28]. In addition, the opinions of experts regarding the tasks of the occupational health team were explored.

To do this, the participants were selected by purposeful sampling. Participants were graduates and faculty members who had worked in an occupational health team for at least three years at five universities in Iran. After identifying participants (n = 47), a Delphi technique was implemented in electronic form. First, a cover letter was sent to the participants to clarify the aims of the research, the expectations, the timetable, and the relationship channels (e-mail, synchronized virtual meetings, and social networks). The participants were asked to list the expected tasks of occupational team members in different disciplines (occupational medicine, occupational hygiene, and ergonomics). The opinions of participants were collected and categorized in four Delphi rounds. After the fourth round, no new task emerged.

After that, the results of the literature review and the opinion of experts were appraised in expert panel meetings with team members from different fields of occupational health and an expert in medical education (n = 5). The items were converted to ‘tasks' according to the criteria of the task-based learning strategy [19, 20].

2) Generation of sub-tasks for each task: Based on the task-based learning strategy, sub-tasks were formulated by considering the skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to perform each task. The sub-tasks were generated in the meeting of expert panels where the experts in different disciplines participated.

3) Assimilation of tasks into a usable form: in this stage, the tasks and sub-tasks with similar themes were classified into seven areas.

Stage Two: Evaluation of the framework (judgment and quantification).

The evaluation of the framework included the judgment quantification of the content validity of items and the framework [27]. In this stage, the qualitative and quantitative content validity of the formulated tasks was assessed from the viewpoints of various stakeholders, including faculty members and graduates of the disciplines providing occupational health services (n = 16).

1) Qualitative content validity assessment

IN this step, a qualitative content validity assessment form was sent to the experts (n = 16). The experts in the session differed from the participants who attended the development stage. After two weeks, the comments, and submitted feedback regarding the tasks, subtasks, and framework were collected. After that, the experts (n = 5) reviewed the submitted feedback from the participants. The items and framework were finalized in the step by the consensus among experts.

2) Quantitative content validity assessment

The quantitative indicators of content validity were examined. Two content validity indicators, "Content Validity Ratio" (CVR) and "Content Validity Index" (CVI), were used [24, 26, 29, 30].

For CVR measurement, a group of experts is employed to assess the appropriateness of framework items that reflect the domain construct on a three-point scale: [1] essential, [2] useful but not essential, and [3] not essential. The minimum value of the content validity ratio was determined based on Lawshe’s table [31].

CVI assesses the content relevancy of each item with the content of the framework [32]. For CVI, each competency criterion of "relevance" was assessed using a four-point Likert scale [33]. In this study, the item-level content validity index (I-CVI) was examined for each task, and the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI / Ave) which is an average of item-level content validity indices for the framework (all items) was calculated [33]. When there are five or fewer experts, I-CVI is recommended to be 1.00, while a minimum I-CVI of 0.78 is recommended when there are more than five experts [30]. In the study, the minimum acceptable CVR according to Lawshe’s table was determined to be 0.49 [34]. The results were reviewed in the expert panel, and proposed amendments and quantitative validity indicators of each task were discussed. At this stage, the tasks and the framework were finalized by consensus among experts.

Development of program components

After explaining the tasks, according to the task-based learning strategy [19, 20], three matrices were developed, including 1) a matrix of task-expected roles in the occupational health team; 2) a matrix for task-required skills to perform each task; 3) a matrix of the teaching and appropriate assessment methods of the tasks. Finally, the experts reviewed and approved the components of the interprofessional task-based training program.

In total, 25 expert panel sessions were held over 14 months to develop the task-based interprofessional training program for occupational health services.

Results

A total of 68 faculty members and graduates of different disciplines involved in providing occupational health services participated in the study.

  • Five experts participated in the expert panel meetings including an expert in medical education and two experts in occupational medicine and an expert in occupational hygiene and an expert in ergonomics. Their mean age was 40 ± 13 years.

  • Forty-seven faculty members and graduates in occupational medicine (25 people, 53.19%) and occupational hygiene (16 people, 34.04%), and ergonomics (6 people, 12.76%) participated in Delphi rounds in the development stage. Their mean age was 46 ± 9.23 years.

  • In the evaluation of the framework stage, 16 specialists and faculty members participated. Of these, nine were males (56.25%), and seven were females (43.75%). Their mean age was 47.66 ± 8.73 years.

In the development stage, 48 items were extracted and 35 tasks were generated in the step of identification of tasks. In the second step (generation of sub-tasks for each task), 174 sub-tasks were developed. The tasks and sub-tasks were categorized into seven areas.

In the evaluation of the framework stage, three tasks were merged according to the submitted feedback in the qualitative content validity step. Moreover, 12 sub-tasks were suggested to be removed and/or merged. Finally, the content validity of 33 tasks was assessed qualitatively.

The results showed that the CVR value for all items was higher than the minimum acceptable value, so all items were kept in the framework. According to the I-CVI index, the CVI values of all competencies were above 0.79 and were maintained in the framework. Quantitative content validity results are reported in Table 1. Quantitative validity test results for the framework were confirmed by S-CVI / Ave = 0.78 (scale-level content validity index).

Table 1 Results of quantitative content validity assessment

Finally, 33 tasks were categorized into seven main areas, including "assessment and identification of workplace hazards" (n = 10), "control of occupational hazards" (n = 4), "determining the appropriate job position for each person" (n = 3), "occupational health examinations" (n = 6), "management of occupational/work-related diseases" (n = 5), "inter-organizational, inter-disciplinary relations and legal judgment" (n = 3) and "education and scholarship in occupational health services" (n = 2).

The tasks and sub-tasks of the occupational health team are reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Task framework of the occupational health team in task-based interprofessional training

In the task-based learning strategy, it is required to determine general and special competencies to conduct each task. The matrix of tasks- general and specialized competencies in two axes (as a sample) is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Matrix of Task-Competency (general and specialized) in an interprofessional training program based on a task-based approach

In planning a task-based learning program, it is often helpful to prepare a matrix on which the specified tasks are related to the roles. The tasks-roles matrix of the members of the occupational health team is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 the Tasks- roles matrix of the members of the occupational health team

In the final step of program development, teaching and learning methods in the interprofessional situation and assessment methods were determined based on each task. The matrix of teaching–learning and assessment methods in the interprofessional task based-learning program is shown in Table 5.

Table 5 matrix of tasks and methods of teaching–learning and methods of assessment of learners in the interprofessional task based learning program

Discussion

The task-based strategy provides situations for students to learn the tasks that correspond to their future job duties and acquire the necessary competencies. In this study, a task-based interprofessional training program was developed for different learners of the occupational health team. Different groups are involved in providing occupational health services, among which occupational medicine and occupational hygiene specialists have the most important role in providing the services in our country.

The expected duties of people involved in providing occupational health services need to be reformed proportionately in response to changes in the work environment, technological developments, production processes and the emergence of new hazards in the work environment, and changes in the framework of occupational health laws and guidelines [2, 16, 35,36,37,38,39,40]. Several studies have been conducted to explain the competencies, skills, and duties of occupational health team members worldwide [2, 16, 35,36,37,38,39,40]. Their results can be used for reforming and modifying existing curricula and improving the level of occupational health services [41]. In the present study, the integration of interprofessional education and task-based education strategies was used. Interprofessional education provides opportunities for learners to learn technical skills (identifying and assessing the risk of workplace hazards, controlling occupational hazards, determining the appropriate job position, occupational health examinations, and managing work-related/occupational diseases) and soft and non-technical skills (interprofessional collaboration, communication, teamwork, and professionalism) through, from, with and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of services. The interprofessional competencies as a general competency including role and responsibility, values and professionalism, interprofessional communication, teamwork, and collaboration were considered in different extracted areas.

In the present study, the interprofessional competencies which were introduced by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative Report (IPEC) were used [28]. A planned educational process provides interprofessional situations, where learners learn the tasks expected in their future careers in the real environment and with colleagues from different disciplines with whom they will work in the future [42].

Occupational health is a multidisciplinary, interprofessional, inter-departmental, and inter-organizational field that goes beyond the boundaries of the health sector [43]. Even in the health sector, many people are influential in providing and promoting occupational health, including general physicians, specialists in occupational medicine, and professionals in occupational hygiene, safety, ergonomics, environmental health, etc. Therefore, to ensure the highest level of occupational health for workers and their families, the cooperation of different people in these fields is needed, along with the cooperation of employers, insurance organizations, and other institutions [15].

Interprofessional collaboration is sharing responsibilities while defining the roles and goals of each profession, and integration and shared identities are less important than collaboration as teamwork [44]. Integrating the inter-professional or task-based method that takes advantage of the essential elements of problem-based education and education in small groups can provide an excellent opportunity to understand the course material, teach the material more effectively, and increase the efficiency of the teaching–learning process. Although traditional teaching methods such as lectures are still used in many educational institutions in our country as the primary teaching method, task-based teaching has been implemented in many studies, and its effect on people's learning has been proven [23, 45, 46].

Changing the teaching methods and moving towards more practical training is always challenging at first and faces resistance. In a study in Pakistan, Ayub Khan and his colleagues implemented training on how to prevent surgical wound infection based on interprofessional task-based training, and the results of the study showed a positive effect on knowledge and performance in addition to student satisfaction [23]. In our program, the teaching–learning and assessment methods were designed in real and simulated interprofessional situations. The teaching–learning methods were designed to provide simulated situations and real environments for learners to learn their competencies. The interprofessional small group setting, simulation (case-based learning, scenario, and reasoning teaching methods), and workplace-based learning method (ambulatory-based learning, interprofessional rounds, and project-based learning) were defined as the primary methods. In addition, learner assessment methods were designed to assess the competencies in different domains such as knowledge, skills, and attitudes by different assessment methods in simulated and real situations. The assessment methods included modified essays, team objective structured examinations, and observational examinations, such as mini-clinical exams (Mini-CEX), and direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS). The learners must show their competencies to conduct the expected tasks in their future careers.

In the current study, the tasks of the members of the occupational health team were summarized in seven axes with emphasis on two fields of occupational hygiene and occupational medicine, including: "identifying and assessing the risk of workplace hazards", "controlling occupational hazards", "determining the appropriate job position for each person", "occupational health examinations", "managing work-related/occupational diseases", "inter-organizational and inter-disciplinary relations and legal judgment", and "education and scholarship in providing occupational health services. "

The "Identifying and assessing the risk of workplace hazards" axis is known as one of the most fundamental tasks of the occupational health team. In this task, members of occupational health team, especially occupational hygiene specialists, identify and assess all types of hazards and exposures in the workplace based on existing standards. The provision of any occupational health service depends on the correct and complete performance of this task and appropriate reporting of its results. The diversity of job exposures in different environments shows the complexity of this task and the need to have skills to perform it [47]. Incomplete or incorrect information in this regard can lead to incorrect decisions in all areas of occupational health, including selecting a suitable person for a job, diagnosing a disease as occupational, and even legal decisions. Therefore, interprofessional team members must acquire the necessary skills such as methods of measurement, interpretation, and reporting of the assessments to perform this task in different situations. In this task, students must evaluate hazards, including chemical, physical, ergonomic, biological, and psychological exposures in the real environment of the workplace. Based on the initial assessment results, the learners should formulate a plan for individual and environmental quantitative measurements and compile a matrix of occupational exposures of the employees. In the next step, the learners should compile, interpret, and report the results of assessments and measurements of the hazardous factors of the work environment in cooperation with the members of the occupational health team.

The axis of "controlling occupational hazards" deals with the standardization of exposure to hazardous factors in the workplace. The basis of this task is to reduce the hazards caused by occupational exposures. Therefore, especially for perilous hazards such as ionizing radiation or carcinogenic agents, the goal is to eliminate the exposure or control it as much as possible. For other exposures, when there is an exposure that exceeds the permissible limits based on the report of exposures in the work environment (previous task), it is necessary to put exposure control on the agenda. There are various methods to control exposures, from replacing a highly hazardous exposure with a less hazardous exposure as the highest level of exposure control to reducing the concentration or intensity of exposure using measures such as installing ventilation, and finally using personal protective equipment [48]. Planning to prioritize to control chemical, physical, biological, psychological, and ergonomic hazards are explained in this task. It is expected that members of occupational health team can play an influential role in reducing the burden of occupational diseases, increasing job satisfaction, and increasing productivity with interprofessional cooperation. In ​​hazard control, the control of hazardous chemical, physical, and psychological factors was emphasized in this study, and control of chemical and physical hazards was considered a task exclusively performed by occupational hygiene professionals, and it is less commonly considered as a team task. Determining, managing, and controlling psychological hazards in the work environment is another task emphasized in this axis. The importance of this category in work environments is that it has a significant effect on job satisfaction, reducing the mental burden of the work and increasing productivity; the educational curricula of the disciplines related to occupational health have not paid enough attention to this task regarding psychological hazards, therefore, in practice, occupational health teams do not pay much attention to this critical occupational hazard in the assessments of the work environment.

One of the essential tasks of the occupational health team is to determine the appropriate job position for each person, taking into account physical, mental, and social limitations and abilities. In this task, after identifying the occupational tasks of the person, determining the exposures, evaluating the individual’s physical and mental health status, and evaluation of his (her) functional capacity, it is necessary to put these categories together to select the right person for the job. Accordingly, in this task, the occupational health team must decide whether the job applicant can perform the main tasks of the job efficiently or not and what changes are needed in the workplace so that the person can work more efficiently. This task is very sensitive because a mistake in a decision can lead to aggravating or inducing an occupational disease or, on the contrary, prevent a person from employment in a job that he (she) is capable of doing it. In this task, the following decisions may be made for the job applicant: "fit for the job", "fit subject to changes in the workplace", "fit with occupational restrictions/limitations", and "unfit for the job" [49]. Due to the variety of jobs and significant differences between work environments, even in similar industries, there is no reliable standard in this field [49], so this task is performed based on available reports and individual assessments. In this task, the members of the occupational health team must work together, based on the estimation of the burden of occupational hazards and hazardous factors identified in the workplace and underlying diseases, to determine the appropriate job position for the employees.

Another focus of the tasks of the occupational health team, especially general practitioners and occupational medicine specialists, is "occupational health examinations." In this task, occupational medicine specialists design various types of occupational health examinations based on the reports of the occupational health team. These examinations include "pre-employment (pre-placement)", "periodic (screening)", "return to work", "fitness for work", and "exit" examinations. In most countries, entry into any job requires an initial examination of the applicant based on workplace exposures, which are carried out as pre-employment or pre-placement examinations. People working in different workplaces need to be examined periodically to detect the possible effect of occupational exposures on the employee’s health, i.e., early case finding, which is done in the form of periodic examinations based on the guidelines in each country [50]. Any person who is away from work for a period due to a serious illness must be re-evaluated in terms of fitness for work when returning to work, which is done in the form of return-to-work examinations. In addition, according to the employer's report, any employed person who cannot perform the assigned tasks must be re-evaluated in terms of fitness for work. Another time a person needs to be checked is when he (she) leaves any work environment for any reason (dismissal, retirement, job change, etc.). In most of the examinations that are performed, in addition to determining the level of health, the condition of fitness of the individual for work is also evaluated [51]. In this task, the learners of occupational health must design and implement occupational examinations and make decisions based on the results and related national and international standards and requirements. Reporting the results of the examinations to different stakeholders based on different perspectives is also performed in this task.

In the current study, "managing occupational/work-related diseases", focuses on diagnosing, treating, and rehabilitating work-related diseases. Occupational health services play an essential role in preventing, treating, and rehabilitating work-related diseases [52]. To reach the strategy of the World Health Organization, "occupational health for all", it is necessary to provide effective occupational health services to all employees by competent people in this field [53]. This requires empowerment and proper training based on the professional needs and practical tasks of the individuals involved in providing occupational health services. Considering the importance of health care in people's familial, social and economic life, evaluation and monitoring of the efficiency and effectiveness of occupational health services are performed by many people and organizations involved in this field and outside the occupational health team, such as insurance companies, employers, health departments of universities of medical sciences, etc. In this task, learners of different professions ​​are expected to actively cooperate in diagnosing occupational diseases. They suggest suitable methods for preventing and treating occupational diseases, appropriate rehabilitation, and early or progressive return to work. Identifying the relationship between disease and hazardous factors in the work environment is also essential. The results must be recorded and reported by occupational health team based on national and international guidelines. One of the neglected tasks in providing occupational health services is using proper rehabilitation methods for rehabilitation and early return to work of employees. In this category, the authority of the occupational health team is somewhat limited, and many factors are involved in this decision. The factors include the certificate of the treating physicians for when and how to return to work, the policies of insurance companies, the policies of the workplace, leave benefits, etc.

One of the duties of the members of occupational health team, especially occupational medicine specialists, is defined in the axis of "inter-organizational, interdisciplinary relations and legal judgment." One of the world's most essential costs of occupational health is the cost of occupational compensation due to occupational diseases or accidents. In this axis, the tasks of the occupational health team include determining whether the disease is occupational, determining the percentage of occupational involvement in causing the disease (apportionment), and determining impairment and disability [54], which is performed in the form of consulting relevant institutions, including forensic medicine organization, labor office, insurance companies, health departments of universities, etc. In this task, consultation with external organizations and various stakeholders and monitoring the provision of occupational health is essential. Involvement in intra and extra-organizational activities, such as cooperation with forensic medicine organization, Health system, judiciary, and labor office related to the provision of occupational health services is explained in this axis. Neglecting interprofessional and inter-departmental cooperation for health team members can be due to the lack of a comprehensive view of the activities of the occupational health team. This can be improved by using the strategy of interprofessional education and the development of professional commitment competencies.

Finally, the axis of "education and scholarship in the provision of occupational health services" emphasizes the two primary tasks of teaching different stakeholders and using the scholarly strategy in professional activities. The occupational health team needs to train different stakeholders such as employees, employers, colleagues, etc.; therefore, it is necessary to design, implement and evaluate the appropriate training process. In this axis, a scholarly strategy for all professional activities has been considered.

In this study a task-competency matrix was compiled in line with a competency-based framework of ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) [55]. In this matrix, the principal competencies to perform each task was defined. In each axis two kinds of competencies, including general competencies (communication skills, interprofessional collaboration, professionalism, and evidence-based decision making), and specialized competencies (identification of occupational exposures, mastery in exposure measurement, interpretation of results, medical history taking, occupational history taking, physical exam, professional judgment, and mastery in the methods of exposure control) were emphasized and scored according to the importance and applicability of each competency to perform each task, for example “professional judgment” as a competency was important in “determining appropriate job position” task, less important in “walkthrough survey”, and not important in “measuring the psychological hazards of the workplace”. This classification was done for the required competencies in each axis.

In this regard, “interpretation of results”, “identification of occupational exposures”, “professional judgment”, and “mastery in the methods of exposure control” were emphasized as the most important specialized competencies in “controlling occupational hazards” axis. In the second axis, i.e. “fitness for work”, interpretation of the initial assessments and judgment to find the appropriate job for a person or find a person completely fit for performing essential tasks of the job is very important, therefore, the following competencies were rated important: “interpretation of results”, “occupational history taking”, “medical history taking”, “professional judgment”, “physical exam”, and “identification of occupational exposures”. In the axis of “health risk assessment”, two specialized competencies, i.e. “occupational history taking”, and “professional judgment” were considered as the most important competencies. This axis is performed mostly by occupational physicians, so there was not a competency with high degree of necessity for all tasks. The forth axis was “managing work-related/occupational diseases”, an important task which is again performed by physicians, especially occupational medicine specialists; in this axis, the physician should diagnose, treat, rehabilitate, and most importantly prevent occupational diseases, so the following tasks which are mostly medical tasks were scored as the most important: “medical history taking”, “occupational history taking”, “physical exam”, “selecting appropriate paraclinical tests”, “interpretation of paraclinical tests”, “diagnosis of disease”, and “diagnosis of disease as work-induced”.

The results showed that general competencies such as “communication skills”, “evidence-based decision making”, “interprofessional collaboration’, and “professionalism” had an effective role in all tasks. Performing tasks related to occupational health services there is a need for collaboration of the members of different professions such as occupational medicine, industrial hygiene, and ergonomics. In addition, due to the emergence of new exposures and hazards in the workplaces after a process change or a change in the materials or equipment, being skillful in evidence-based decision-making as a means for response to the changing nature of the workplace hazards is important. Considering the characteristics and importance of occupational health services, and legal and juridical aspects of these services, observing the principles of professionalism is emphasized.

According to the outcomes-based framework of Can Meds [56], the matrix between tasks and expected roles of the providers of occupational health services was compiled. The results showed that in the axis of “exposure risk assessment”, performing tasks in the role of an evaluator has the highest importance for providers of occupational health services, in the axis of “controlling occupational hazards” consultant and evaluator roles were important, and in the axis of “fitness for work” and “health risk assessment” the people are prepared for playing the role of evaluator, screener and professional/expert. The educators are prepared to play the role of a therapist and professional/expert in the axis of “managing occupational diseases”, and the role of screener and professional/expert in “inter-organizational and inter-disciplinary relations and legal judgment” axis.

In this study, task- teaching–learning and evaluation methods matrix showed that various methods of teaching and evaluation are considered. In teaching methods, different interactive methods in small group, simulation and PBL settings based on inter-professional education was emphasized. The learners experience the exposure to problems similar to the real world and learn how to manage them. In addition, teaching in the real environment in inter-professional teams provides valuable opportunities for them to experience the situations which they will face in their future career. Evaluation methods of the learners’ competencies in performing their tasks, was designed in different levels of cognition, performance and attitude, using various tools.

The present study used the content validity methodology introduced by Lynn [27]. This method categorizes the framework of content validity into two stages including development and assessment. Recently, content validity methodology has gained special attention especially in developing instruments [24, 25, 57]. In this model, it is possible to compile content and structure and evaluate their validity. In this study, in the development stage, there was a possibility to extract the tasks from different sources such as literature review and expert opinion, which provided a complete content coverage of all tasks. In the next step, subtasks were determined for each task. In this step, the expert opinions in the panel helped us determine a set of essential subtasks by careful concentration on each task. General and specialized competencies were also paid attention to in this stage. In the next stage, tasks and subtasks were categorized according to Lynn's study [27]. This step helped structured categorization as well (convergence phase). Besides, the participants in the panel had the opportunity to re-evaluate the content coverage of the categories and be confident of the complete content coverage of the framework. In the second stage, the framework and tasks were assessed separately and validity indices were measured for each item and the whole framework.

Halek et al. similar to the present study used the content analysis method introduced by Lynn. They performed their study in three categories (evaluation, development, and judgment and quantification) and five stages. The stages included a literature review in two stages, an expert panel for their first evaluation of the instrument and a second and third evaluation in a workshop and the field [58]. They used only a literature review in the development phase and expert opinions were used in the second stage by assessing validity indices. They also used their instrument in the real environment to assess its applicability and practical use, but in the current study, expert opinion was used in the first stage as well to gain complete content coverage. Zamanzadeh et al. consistent with the present study, used content validity assessment in both stages of development and judgment, and the content validity indices were measured in the second stage [59]. In the current study, different sources (such as literature review and expert opinion) and methods (consensus-based methods such as the Delphi technique) were applied in the development stage. When there is a limitation of access to the participants, the Delphi method is suitable [60, 61], so in the current study, considering the participation of individuals from five different universities, the Delphi technique was used.

Limitations

In this study, the tasks were compiled based on the different views of experts in one country. The limitation of number of participants in one environment is one of the limitations of the present study. Due to the differences in the domestic laws and guidelines in the occupational health field, this framework's generalizability to other environments is limited.

Advantages: To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to develop an interprofessional task-based learning program and its related matrices in Iran which can be used for future studies in this field and also for curriculum development of the disciplines in which graduates are involved in providing occupational health services.

Conclusion

The present study used a content validity study to develop a task framework and interprofessional task-based educational program by integrating interprofessional learning strategy and task-based learning in the occupational health field. Several tasks and subtasks categorized into seven main areas were extracted, developed, and evaluated. The extracted tasks were related to the future career of different learners in the occupational health team. The framework can facilitate the implementation of interprofessional education on different occasions such as in simulation and workplace-based learning situations as a road map.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of study steps

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Rogers B, Kono K, Marziale MHP, Peurala M, Radford J, Staun J. International survey of occupational health nurses’ roles in multidisciplinary teamwork in occupational health services. Workplace health & safety. 2014;62(7):274–81.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Keshmiri F, Mehrparvar AH. Developing a Competency Framework of Interprofessional Occupational Health Team: A First Step to Interprofessional Education in Occupational Health Field. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(11):e765–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Griggio A, Silva J, Rossit R, Mieiro D, Miranda F, Mininel V. Analysis of an interprofessional education activity in the occupational health field. Rev Latino-Am Enfermagem. 2020;28:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwerha J. Why are occupational medicine and industrial hygiene complementary professions and what makes them the key members of the occupational health team? J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51:120–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barr H, Gray R, Helme M, Low H, Reeves S. Interprofessional Education Guidelines 2016. Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE); 2016.

  6. Buring SM, Bhushan A, Broeseker A, Conway S, Duncan-Hewitt W, Hansen L, et al. Interprofessional education: definitions, student competencies, and guidelines for implementation. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2009;73(4).

  7. Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC). A national interprofessional competency framework. Available at: http://www.cihc.ca/files/CIHC_IPCompetencies_Feb1210.pdf. 2010.

  8. Hepp SL, Suter E, Jackson K, Deutschlander S, Makwarimba E, Jennings J, et al. Using an interprofessional competency framework to examine collaborative practice. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(2):131–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel. Washington, D.C. Interprofessional Education Collaborative.2011,www.aacn.nche.edu/education-resources/ ipecreport.pdf. 2011.

  10. Smilski A, Parrott M. Interprofessional Competency Frameworks in Education. MedEdPublish. 2019;8(1):1–14.

  11. Rafiei M, Ezzatian R, Farshad A, Sokooti M, Tabibi R, Colosio C. Occupational health services integrated in primary health care in Iran. Ann Glob Health. 2015;81(4):561–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Imbus HR. Fifty years of hope and concern for the future of occupational medicine. J Occup Environ Med. 2004:46(2):96–103.

  13. Gallagher F, Pilkington A, Wynn P, Johnson R, Moore J, Agius R. Specialist competencies in occupational medicine: appraisal of the peer-reviewed literature. Occup Med. 2007;57(5):342–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. LaDou J. Occupational medicine: the case for reform. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(4):396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vasconcellos LCFd. Worker’s Health Surveillance: decalogue for taking a stand. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional. 2018;43 (Suppl 1):1–9.

  16. Persechino B, Fontana L, Buresti G, Rondinone BM, Laurano P, Imbriani M, et al. Professional activity, information demands, training and updating needs of occupational medicine physicians in Italy: national survey. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2016;29(5):837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Khalili H, Thistlethwaite J, El-Awaisi A, Pfeifle A, Gilbert J, Lising D, et al. Guidance on global interprofessional education and collaborative practice research: Discussion paper. A joint publication by InterprofessionalResearch.Global and Interprofessional. Global. 2019;9–13.

  18. Reeves S, Fletcher S, Barr H, Birch I, Boet S, Davies N, et al. A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Medical Teacher. 2016;38(7):656–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harden R, Laidlaw JM, Ker JS, Mitchell HE. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 7.: Task-based learning: An educational strategy for undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing medical education, Part 2. J Medical Teacher. 1996;18(2):91–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Harden R, Uudlaw JM, Ker JS, Mitchell HE. AMEE medical education guide no. 7.: task-based learning: an educational strategy for undergraduat postgraduate and continuing medical education, part 1. J Medical Teacher. 1996;18(1):7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harden R, Crosby J, Davis M, Howie P, Struthers A. Task-based learning: the answer to integration and problem-based learning in the clinical years. Medical Education-Oxford. 2000;34(5):391–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ozkan H, Degirmenci B, Musal B, Itil O, Akalin E, Kilinc O, et al. Task-based learning programme for clinical years of medical education. Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice. 2006;19(1):32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Khan MNA, Verstegen DM, Shahid A, Dolmans DH, van Mook WNA. The impact of interprofessional task-based training on the prevention of surgical site infection in a low-income country. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Almanasreh E, Moles RJ, Chen TF. A practical approach to the assessment and quantification of content validity. Contemporary Research Methods in Pharmacy and Health Services: Elsevier; 2022. p. 583–99.

  25. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in social administrative pharmacy. 2019;15(2):214–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social work research. 2003;27(2):94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35(6):382–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Thistlethwaite JE, Forman D, Matthews LR, Rogers GD, Steketee C, Yassine T. Competencies and frameworks in interprofessional education: a comparative analysis. Acad Med. 2014;89(6):869–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio: Revisiting the Original Methods of Calculation. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2014;47(7):79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Waltz C, Bausell R. Nursing research: Design, statistics, and computer analysis. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lawsche C. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hugenholtz NI, Schaafsma FG, Schreinemakers JF, van Dijk FJ, Nieuwenhuijsen K. Occupational physicians' perceived value of evidence-based medicine intervention in enhancing their professional performance. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008;34(3):189–97.

  36. Schaafsma F, Hulshof C, De Boer A, Hackmann R, Roest N, Van Dijk F. Occupational physicians: what are their questions in daily practice? An observation study Occupational Medicine. 2006;56(3):191–8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Griggio AP, Silva JAMd, Rossit RAS, Mieiro DB, Miranda FMd, Mininel VA. Analysis of an interprofessional education activity in the occupational health field. Revista latino-americana de enfermagem. 2020;28(28):e3247. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3228.3247. [article in French].).

  38. Saldaña MR, Pimentel AGM, Posada AS. Occupational Health Nursing: Competence and experience to achieve the safety, health and well-being of the working population. Enfermería Clínica (English Edition). 2019;29(6):375–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. González-Caballero J. Training in occupational health nursing competencies: an ongoing review. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH NURSING. 2020;1(1):84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nissinen S, Timo L, Österman P, Lappalainen K. Workload in Occupational Health Nursing: A study among Occupational Health Nurses in Finland. Population. 2020;15(16):17.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Harber P, Rose S, Bontemps J, Saechao K, Liu Y, Elashoff D, et al. Occupational medicine practice: one specialty or three? J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(7):672–9.

  42. Reeves S. Ideas for the development of the interprofessional education and practice field: an update. J Interprof Care. 2016;30 (4):05-7.

  43. Gomez CM, Vasconcellos LCFD, Machado JMH. A brief history of worker’s health in Brazil’s Unified Health System: progress and challenges. Ciência Saúde Coletiva. 2018;23:1963–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Reeves S, Xyrichis A, Zwarenstein M. Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: Why we need to distinguish between different types of interprofessional practice. J Interprof Care. 2018;32(1):1–3.

  45. Susilo AP, van Merriënboer J, van Dalen J, Claramita M, Scherpbier A. From lecture to learning tasks: use of the 4C/ID model in a communication skills course in a continuing professional education context. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 2013;44(6):278–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vakani F, Jafri W, Ahmad A, Sonawalla A, Sheerani M. Task-based learning versus problem-oriented lecture in neurology continuing medical education. JCPSP J College Phys Surg Pakistan. 2014;24(1):23.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Burdorf A, Tongeren MV. Commentary: variability in workplace exposures and the design of efficient measurement and control strategies. Ann Occupation Hygiene. 2003;47(2):95–9.

    Google Scholar 

  48. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health N. Worker health surveillance. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/surveillance/default.html.

  49. Serra C, Rodriguez MC, Delclos GL, Plana M, López LIG, Benavides FG. Criteria and methods used for the assessment of fitness for work: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(5):304–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rafeemanesh E, Lotfi H, Taheri R, Rahimpour F. The role of occupational examinations in early diagnosis of diseases of workers. Iran Occupational Health. 2013;10(3):12–9.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Carel R, Scheiner E. Evaluation of clinical findings in occupational health examinations. Harefuah. 1999;137(7–8):336–40 50.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hulshof C, Verbeek J, Van Dijk F, van der Weide WE, Braam I. Evaluation research in occupational health services: general principles and a systematic review of empirical studies. Occup Environ Med. 1999;56(6):361–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. World Health Organisation. Global strategy on occupational health for all. Recommendation of the 2nd meeting of the WHO Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health. Beijing, China 11–14 October 1994. Geneva: WHO; 1995, pp. 5–13.

  54. World Health Organization. International classification of functional disability and health. 2018. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en.

  55. Swing RS. The ACGME outcome project: retrospective and prospective. Med Teach. 2007;29(7):648–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Frank JR, Danoff D. The CanMEDS initiative: implementing an outcomes-based framework of physician competencies Medical Teacher. 2007;29(7):642–7.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Alias ES, Mukhtar M, Jenal R. Instrument development for measuring the acceptance of UC&C: a content validity study. Int J Adv Comp Sci Appl. 2019;10(4):187–93.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Halek M, Holle D, Bartholomeyczik S. Development and evaluation of thecontent validity, practicability and feasibility of the Innovativedementia-oriented Assessment system for challenging behaviour in residents withdementia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):554–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar A-R. Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. 2015;4(2):165–78.

  60. Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Tech Forecast Soc Change. 2006;73(5):467–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Chu HC, Hwang GJ. A Delphi-based approach to developing expert systemswith the cooperation of multiple experts. Expert Syst Appl. 2008;34(4):2826–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants who have been involved and the continuation of the study.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Agency for Strategic Research in Medical Education. Tehran. Iran. Grant No. 984284. The grant supported the data collection process. The funders had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or preparation of the manuscript. The report of the study's findings is sent by the authors to the funder at the end of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

F.K, AH.M. conceptualized and designed the study, collected the data, and analyzed the data. F.K, AH.M. prepared the main manuscript text. The authors have met the criteria for authorship and had a role in preparing the manuscript. Also, the authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Houshang Mehrparvar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This project was approved by the ethics committee of the National Agency for Strategic Research in Medical Education, Tehran, Iran. (ID: IR.NASRME.REC.1400.108). The written informed consent forms were obtained from all participants. The work was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were provided with information on the study and gave consent.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keshmiri, F., Mehrparvar, A.H. Development of an interprofessional task-based learning program in the field of occupational health: a content validity study. BMC Med Educ 23, 11 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03997-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03997-1

Keywords

  • Task-based learning
  • Interprofessional learning
  • Occupational health services
  • Occupational medicine
  • Industrial hygiene