Examining the readiness of best evidence in medical education guides for integration into educational practice: A meta-synthesis

Is There a Problem With Evidence in Health Professions Education?

ABSTRACT

What constitutes evidence, what value evidence has, and how the needs of knowledge producers and those who consume this knowledge might be better aligned are questions that continue to challenge the health sciences. In health professions education (HPE), debates on these questions have ebbed and flowed with little sense of resolution or progress. In this article, the authors explore whether there is a problem with evidence in HPE using thought experiments anchored in Argyris' learning loops framework.From a single-loop perspective ("How are we doing?"), there may be many problems with evidence in HPE, but little is known about how research evidence is being used in practice and policy. A double-loop perspective ("Could we do better?") suggests expectations of knowledge producers and knowledge consumers might be too high, which suggests more system-wide approaches to evidence-informed practice in HPE are needed. A triple-loop perspective ("Are we asking the right questions?") highlights misalignments between the dynamics of research and decision-making, such that scholarly inquiry may be better approached as a way of advancing broader conversations, rather than contributing to specific decision-making processes.The authors ask knowledge producers and consumers to be more attentive to the translation from knowledge to evidence. They also argue for more systematic tracking and audit of how research knowledge is used as evidence. Given that research does not always have to serve practical purposes or address the problems of a particular program or institution, the relationship between knowledge and evidence should be understood in terms of changing conversations and influencing decisions.

Clinical supervision in medical education: A citation analysis

PURPOSE

Medical education relies on clinical supervision for critical functions, including trainee assessment and ensuring patient safety. Yet, there is substantial variance in supervision, which has led to calls for a shared definition of the concept and guidelines to inform practice. AMEE Guide No. 27 provided these desired elements and is highly cited, suggesting that translation and utilization of the Guide's knowledge is suboptimal. This study investigates utilization by systematically characterizing citations to the Guide and by describing translation of its recommendations in relation to supervision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Citations were identified using Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The authors coded all citations and conducted a subanalysis of studies specific to supervision.

RESULTS

583 studies were identified; 268 met inclusion criteria for general analysis of which 167 studies were further analyzed. Most studies reiterated the Guide's characterization of effective supervision, but few demonstrate how these recommendations inform innovations in supervisory practice.

CONCLUSION

Translation of the Guide's recommendations regarding clinical supervision appears limited. Future research should consider the extent of knowledge translation occurring in clinical supervision literature as well as AMEE Guides. Increased attention to knowledge translation in medical education may benefit the distribution of similar knowledge products.

Educating educators on research on research

None

Building evidence-based practice competencies among rehabilitation students: a qualitative exploration of faculty and preceptors' perspectives

Medical education literature suggests clinically-integrated teaching may be the most effective approach to teach evidence-based practice (EBP). Before implementing this educational best practice in rehabilitation curricula, it is imperative to better understand the current context, barriers and facilitators to teach EBP in rehabilitation from the academic to the clinical setting. The aim of this study was to explore faculty and preceptors' experiences and perceptions of teaching EBP in rehabilitation professions, namely occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech-language pathology. We gathered data from seven focus groups and an individual interview with a sample of 24 faculty and 15 preceptors, i.e., clinical supervisors. Data collected were subjected to inductive thematic content analysis. We identified three overarching themes and corresponding strategies. First, "Recognizing EBP as a multifaceted concept" denoted participants' lack of consensus regarding the meaning and scope of EBP, and their awareness of such discrepancies. Second, "Complexity of EBP is at the core of teaching practices and experiences" referred to participants' perception of EBP as a complex process involving high-level cognitive skills, which influenced their teaching practices and challenged students and themselves. Third, "Connections and divides between research and practice" represented the limited and delicate connection between faculty and preceptors, the factors either bridging or maintaining the gap between them, and the impacts of such connections and divides on teaching. Improving collaboration between faculty and preceptors constitutes an essential first step towards more effective EBP training programs in rehabilitation that could be facilitated through online communities of practice or integrated knowledge translation research projects.

Leveraging knowledge translation and implementation science in the pursuit of evidence informed health professions education

Evidence informed approaches to health professions education can ensure accountability to learners and society in providing meaningful and effective education and helping resource strained systems via streamlined and cost-efficient practices. Knowledge translation and implementation science are two areas of study originally developed in clinical medicine in response to concerns that health care practices were incongruent with the scientific evidence. Two decades of research have led to important advances in our understanding of the nature and magnitude of research-practice gaps, the factors that support or impede adoption of evidence in clinical decision-making, and in the design and evaluation of theory driven interventions to reduce gaps. This paper borrows concepts from knowledge translation and implementation science to further our thinking about how health professions education can 'truly' be evidence informed. The article is organised in four sections: a discussion of the impetus for the evidence informed health professions education movement; a description of the origins of knowledge translation and implementation science; a discussion on how knowledge translation and implementation science can be leveraged to advance the evidence informed health professions education agenda; and suggestions for future discussion and research. An example is used to illustrate the application of the underpinning principles of knowledge translation and implementation science. The authors suggest a theory driven, staged and systematic approach that integrates knowledge translation principles and processes and involves key stakeholders interested in promoting the application of educational research of evidence.

Twelve Tips for Creating and Supporting a Meaningful Asynchronous Learning as Parts of Virtual Transition of a Curriculum

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. With increasing use of online learning, the focus is rapidly shifting from in-person learning to virtual asynchronous learning (ASL). The flexibility offered by ASL coupled with advancements in technologies have enabled increased engagement of learners. However, ASL has inherent challenges associated with it, especially for educators. Successful curricula designed for virtual learning should deliver high-quality education, leverage existing technologies, and incorporate evidence-informed educational practices. Contrariwise, if the discourse becomes diluted due to lack of clear goals and objectives, it can lead to identity challenges in educators and dissatisfaction among learners. In this contemporary review, we offer practical tips for educators to guide development and/or implementation of curricula in asynchronous platforms using a Community of Inquiry framework. The guide also elaborates on practical use of various technologies to conform with one's teaching identity as identified by Pratt's teaching perspectives.

Utilization of evidence-based tools and medical education literature by Canadian postgraduate program directors in the teaching and assessment of the CanMEDS roles

BACKGROUND

Researchers have shown that clinical educators feel insufficiently informed about how to teach and assess the CanMEDS roles. Thus, our objective was to examine the extent to which program directors utilize evidence-based tools and the medical education literature in teaching and assessing the CanMEDS roles.

METHODS

In 2016, the authors utilized an online questionnaire to survey 747 Canadian residency program directors (PD's) of Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) accredited programs.

RESULTS

Overall, 186 PD's participated (24.9%). 36.6% did not know whether the teaching strategies they used were evidence-based and another third (31.9%) believed they were "not at all" or "to a small extent" evidence-based. Similarly, 31.8% did not know whether the assessment tools they used were evidence-based and another third (39.7%) believed they were "not at all" or "to a small extent" evidence-based. PD's were aware of research on teaching strategies (62.4%) and assessment tools (51.9%), but felt they did not have sufficient time to review relevant literature (72.1% for teaching and 64.1% for assessment).

CONCLUSIONS

Canadian PD's reported low awareness of evidence-based tools for teaching and assessment, implying a potential knowledge translation gap in medical education research.

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis

PURPOSE

This bibliometric analysis maps the landscape of knowledge syntheses in medical education. It provides scholars with a roadmap for understanding where the field has been and where it might go in the future, thereby informing research and educational practice. In particular, this analysis details the venues in which knowledge syntheses are published, the types of syntheses conducted, citation rates they produce, and altmetric attention they garner.

METHOD

In 2020, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of knowledge syntheses published in 14 core medical education journals from 1999 to 2019. To characterize the studies, metadata were extracted from PubMed, Web of Science, Altmetrics Explorer, and Unpaywall.

RESULTS

The authors analyzed 963 knowledge syntheses representing 3.1% of the total articles published (n = 30,597). On average, 45.9 knowledge syntheses were published annually (SD = 35.85, median = 33), and there was an overall 2620% increase in the number of knowledge syntheses published from 1999 to 2019. The journals each published, on average, a total of 68.8 knowledge syntheses (SD = 67.2, median = 41) with Medical Education publishing the most (n = 189; 19%). Twenty-one types of knowledge synthesis were identified, the most prevalent being systematic reviews (n = 341; 35.4%) and scoping reviews (n = 88; 9.1%). Knowledge syntheses were cited an average of 53.80 times (SD = 107.12, median = 19) and received a mean Altmetric Attention Score of 14.12 (SD = 37.59, median = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been considerable growth in knowledge syntheses in medical education over the past 20 years, contributing to medical education's evidence base. Beyond this increase in volume, researchers have introduced methodological diversity in these publications, and the community has taken to social media to share knowledge syntheses. Implications for the field, including the impact of synthesis types and their relationship to knowledge translation, are discussed.

The use of BEME reviews in the medical education literature

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge syntheses in medical education are intended to promote the translation to, and mobilization of, research knowledge into practice. Despite the effort invested in conducting them, how these knowledge syntheses are used is unclear. This study aimed to explore how knowledge syntheses published by the Best Evidence Medical Education Collaboration (BEME) have been used in a cross-section of published literature.

METHODS

Citation patterns for BEME reviews were explored using data drawn from Web of Science and Scopus, and a sub-sample of citing papers.

RESULTS

Bibliometric data on 3419 papers citing 29 BEME reviews were analysed. More detailed data were extracted from a random sample of 629 full-text papers.

DISCUSSION

BEME reviews were most often positioned to consolidate and summarize the current state of knowledge on a particular topic and to identify gaps in the literature; they were also used to justify current research, and less frequently to contextualize and explain results, or direct future areas of research. Their use to identify instruments or methodological approaches was relatively absent.

CONCLUSION

While BEME reviews are primarily used to justify and support other studies, the current literature does not demonstrate their translation to educational practice.

Professional Development for Clinical Faculty in Academia: Focus on Teaching, Research, and Leadership

Clinical faculty need creative, systematic, and supportive approaches for their success. Academic institutions and departments have a unique opportunity to engage its faculty by sponsoring and creating innovative professional development programs to enhance leadership, research, teaching, and clinical skills. The added benefit of these "homegrown" programs is that clinical faculty members feel more valued, engaged, and supported and will want to better align their priorities with the strategic priorities of the institution. There are excellent national resources to learn from to support and complement local professional development efforts. Each department needs to balance any standard with customized approaches.

Use of evidence in health professions education: Attitudes, practices, barriers and supports

Introduction: Health professions educators are increasingly called upon to apply an evidence-informed approach to teaching and assessment practices. There is scant empirical research exploring educators' attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers and supports to using research evidence in educational practice. Methods: We conducted a survey of AMEE members to explore three domains related to evidence-informed health professions education: (1) attitudes; (2) practices; and (3) supports and barriers. Analyses involved descriptive statistics to characterize participants' responses per domain, exploratory factor analysis, and multivariate regression analyses. Results: Three hundred ninety-six (∼10%) participants representing health professions educators (HPEs) and non HPEs (e.g. PhDs) and different roles (e.g. teacher, administrator) completed the survey. Attitudes toward evidence-informed HPE were generally favorable. Several barriers preclude participants from engaging in evidence-informed approaches to health professions education (HPE). Discussion: This study provides preliminary evidence on the attitudes toward and perceived barriers and supports of research use in HPE from different groups of HP educators, clinicians, and administrators. The findings for each of the three domains require additional exploration using qualitative methodologies. Conclusion: Targeted interventions designed to increase the uptake of research in HPE should consider different stakeholder groups' perceptions regarding these approaches, current vs. best practices, and factors that may impede evidence-informed approaches.