Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots

Blind spots in medical education - International perspectives

BACKGROUND

All individuals and groups have blind spots that can create problems if unaddressed. The goal of this study was to examine blind spots in medical education from international perspectives.

METHODS

From December 2022 to March 2023, we distributed an electronic survey through international networks of medical students, postgraduate trainees, and medical educators. Respondents named blind spots affecting their medical education system and then rated nine blind spot domains from a study of U.S. medical education along five-point Likert-type scales (1 = much less attention needed; 5 = much more attention needed). We tested for differences between blind spot ratings by respondent groups. We also analyzed the blind spots that respondents identified to determine those not previously described and performed content analysis on open-ended responses about blind spot domains.

RESULTS

There were 356 respondents from 88 countries, including 127 (44%) educators, 80 (28%) medical students, and 33 (11%) postgraduate trainees. At least 80% of respondents rated each blind spot domain as needing 'more' or 'much more' attention; the highest was 88% for 'Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood.' In analyses by gender, role in medical education, World Bank country income level, and region, a mean difference of 0.5 was seen in only five of the possible 279 statistical comparisons. Of 885 blind spots documented, new blind spot areas related to issues that crossed national boundaries (e.g. international standards) and the sufficiency of resources to support medical education. Comments about the nine blind spot domains illustrated that cultural, health system, and governmental elements influenced how blind spots are manifested across different settings.

DISCUSSION

There may be general agreement throughout the world about blind spots in medical education that deserve more attention. This could establish a basis for coordinated international effort to allocate resources and tailor interventions that advance medical education.

Group concept mapping for health professions education scholarship

While explicit conceptual models help to inform research, they are left out of much of the health professions education (HPE) literature. One reason may be the limited understanding about how to develop conceptual models with intention and rigor. Group concept mapping (GCM) is a mixed methods conceptualization approach that has been used to develop frameworks for planning and evaluation, but GCM has not been common in HPE. The purpose of this article is to describe GCM in order to make it more accessible for HPE scholars. We recount the origins and evolution of GCM and summarize its core features: GCM can combine multiple stakeholder perspectives in a systematic and inclusive manner to generate explicit conceptual models. Based on the literature and prior experience using GCM, we detail seven steps in GCM: (1) brainstorming ideas to a specific "focus prompt," (2) preparing ideas by removing duplicates and editing for consistency, (3) sorting ideas according to conceptual similarity, (4) generating the point map through quantitative analysis, (5) interpreting cluster map options, (6) summarizing the final concept map, and (7) reporting and using the map. We provide illustrative examples from HPE studies and compare GCM to other conceptualization methods. GCM has great potential to add to the myriad of methodologies open to HPE researchers. Its alignment with principles of diversity and inclusivity, as well as the need to be systematic in applying theoretical and conceptual frameworks to practice, make it a method well suited for the complexities of contemporary HPE scholarship.

Seeing with greater clarity: Stakeholder ratings of blind spots in U.S. medical education

BACKGROUND

Although medical education is affected by numerous blind spots, there is limited evidence to determine which blind spots to prioritize.

METHODS

In summer 2022, we surveyed stakeholders from U.S. medical education who had identified 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots. Respondents used 4-point Likert-type scales to rate the extent and magnitude of problems caused for each domain and subdomain. Respondents also provided comments for which we did content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 23/27 (85%) stakeholders responded. The majority of respondents rated each blind spot domain as moderate-major in both extent and problems they cause. Patient perspectives and voices that are not heard, valued, or understood was the domain with the most stakeholders rating extent (n = 20, 87%) and problems caused (n = 23, 100%) as moderate or major. Admitting and selecting learners likely to practice in settings of highest need was the subdomain with the most stakeholders rating extent (n = 21, 91%) and problems caused (n = 22, 96%) as moderate or major. Respondents' comments suggested blind spots may depend on context and persist because of hierarchies and tradition.

DISCUSSION

We found blind spots differed in relative importance. These data may inform further research and direct interventions to improve medical education.