Schiller Jocelyn Huang, Beck Dallaghan Gary L, Kind Terry, McLauchlan Heather, Gigante Joseph, Smith Sherilyn
J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Oct;105(4):328-335. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2017.134. Epub 2017 Oct 1.
Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects.
Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master's degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11).
Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.
多机构研究可提高研究结果的普遍性。然而，对于健康科学教育研究中跨机构合作的特征，人们了解甚少。作者通过系统综述过程，描述已发表的、经过同行评审的多机构健康科学教育研究的特征，为考虑开展此类项目的教育工作者提供参考。
两名医学图书馆员在MEDLINE、教育资源信息中心（ERIC）、EMBASE和CINAHL数据库中搜索2004年至2013年期间发表的英文研究，使用与多机构系统和健康科学教育相关的关键词。由两名作者组成的团队对每项研究进行评审，并通过共识解决编码差异。收集的数据点包括资金、研究网络参与情况、作者特征、学习者特征和研究方法。使用描述性统计分析数据。
310篇文章中有118篇符合纳入标准。63项（53%）研究获得了外部和/或内部资金支持（87%列出了外部资金，37%列出了内部资金）。45项获得资助的研究涉及毕业后医学教育项目。20项（17%）研究涉及研究或教育网络。85项（89%）出版物列出了拥有硕士学位或博士学位的作者。92项（78%）研究为描述性研究，而26项研究（22%）为实验性研究。报告的研究结果包括学生态度的变化（38%；n = 44）、知识的变化（26%；n = 31）或技能评估的变化（23%；n = 27），以及患者结局的变化（9%；n = 11）。
多机构描述性研究报告知识或态度结局的情况发表得很多。我们的研究结果表明，资金资源对于成功开展多机构项目并非必不可少。获得资助的研究更有可能来自毕业后医学或护理项目。
