Dennis Ashley A, Cleland Jennifer A, Johnston Peter, Ker Jean S, Lough Murray, Rees Charlotte E
Centre for Medical Education, Medical Education Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Med Educ. 2014 Nov;48(11):1078-91. doi: 10.1111/medu.12522.
Setting research priorities is important when exploring complex issues with limited resources. Only two countries (Canada and New Zealand) have previously conducted priority-setting exercises for medical education research (MER). This study aimed to identify the views of multiple stakeholders on MER priorities in Scotland.
This study utilised a two-stage design to explore the views of stakeholders across the medical education continuum using online questionnaires. In Stage 1, key informants outlined their top three MER priorities and justified their choices. In Stage 2, participants rated 21 topics generated in Stage 1 according to importance and identified or justified their top priorities. A combination of qualitative (i.e. framework analysis) and quantitative (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) data analyses were employed.
Views were gathered from over 1300 stakeholders. A total of 21 subthemes (or priority areas) identified in Stage 1 were explored further in Stage 2. The 21 items loaded onto five factors: the culture of learning together in the workplace; enhancing and valuing the role of educators; curriculum integration and innovation; bridging the gap between assessment and feedback, and building a resilient workforce. Within Stage 2, the top priority subthemes were: balancing conflicts between service and training; providing useful feedback; promoting resiliency and well-being; creating an effective workplace learning culture; selecting and recruiting doctors to reflect need, and ensuring that curricula prepare trainees for practice. Participant characteristics were related to the perceived importance of the factors. Finally, five themes explaining why participants prioritised items were identified: patient safety; quality of care; investing for the future; policy and political agendas, and evidence-based education.
This study indicates that, across the spectrum of stakeholders and geography, certain MER priorities are consistently identified. These priority areas are in harmony with a range of current drivers in UK medical education. They provide a platform of evidence on which to base decisions about MER programmes in Scotland and beyond.
在资源有限的情况下探索复杂问题时,确定研究重点很重要。此前只有两个国家(加拿大和新西兰)开展过医学教育研究(MER)的重点确定工作。本研究旨在确定苏格兰多个利益相关者对医学教育研究重点的看法。
本研究采用两阶段设计,通过在线问卷探索医学教育连续统一体中各利益相关者的观点。在第一阶段,关键信息提供者列出他们认为最重要的三个医学教育研究重点并说明理由。在第二阶段,参与者根据重要性对第一阶段产生的21个主题进行评分,并确定或说明他们认为最重要的重点。采用了定性(即框架分析)和定量(如探索性因素分析)相结合的数据分析方法。
收集了1300多名利益相关者的意见。在第二阶段进一步探讨了第一阶段确定的总共21个子主题(或重点领域)。这21个项目归为五个因素:工作场所共同学习的文化;加强和重视教育工作者的作用;课程整合与创新;弥合评估与反馈之间的差距,以及打造有适应力的劳动力队伍。在第二阶段,最重要的子主题是:平衡服务与培训之间的冲突;提供有用的反馈;促进适应力和幸福感;营造有效的工作场所学习文化;根据需求选拔和招聘医生,以及确保课程使受训人员为实践做好准备。参与者特征与各因素的感知重要性相关。最后,确定了五个解释参与者为何将某些项目列为重点的主题:患者安全;护理质量;为未来投资;政策和政治议程,以及循证教育。
本研究表明,在不同利益相关者群体和地域范围内,某些医学教育研究重点得到了一致认同。这些重点领域与英国医学教育当前的一系列驱动因素相契合。它们提供了一个证据平台,可据此对苏格兰及其他地区的医学教育研究项目做出决策。