BACKGROUND: Despite an explosion of medical education research and publications, it is not known how medical educator consumers decide what to read or apply in their practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine how consumers of medical education research define quality and value. METHODS: Journal of Graduate Medical Education editors performed a literature search to identify articles on medical education research quality published between 2000 and 2013, surveyed medical educators for their criteria for judging quality, and led a consensus-building workshop at a 2013 Association of American Medical Colleges meeting to further explore how users defined quality in education research. The workshop used standard consensus-building techniques to reach concept saturation. Attendees then voted for the 3 concepts they valued most in medical education research. RESULTS: The 110 survey responses generated a list of 37 overlapping features in 10 categories considered important aspects of quality. The literature search yielded 27 articles, including quality indexes, systematic and narrative reviews, and commentaries. Thirty-two participants, 12 facilitators, and 1 expert observer attended the workshop. Participants endorsed the following features of education research as being most valuable: (1) provocative, novel, or challenged established thinking; (2) adhered to sound research principles; (3) relevant to practice, role, or needs; (4) feasible, practical application in real-world settings; and (5) connection to a conceptual framework. CONCLUSIONS: Medical educators placed high value on rigorous methods and conceptual frameworks, consistent with published quality indexes. They also valued innovative or provocative work, feasibility, and applicability to their setting. End-user opinions of quality may illuminate how educators translate knowledge into practice.
BACKGROUND: Despite an explosion of medical education research and publications, it is not known how medical educator consumers decide what to read or apply in their practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine how consumers of medical education research define quality and value. METHODS: Journal of Graduate Medical Education editors performed a literature search to identify articles on medical education research quality published between 2000 and 2013, surveyed medical educators for their criteria for judging quality, and led a consensus-building workshop at a 2013 Association of American Medical Colleges meeting to further explore how users defined quality in education research. The workshop used standard consensus-building techniques to reach concept saturation. Attendees then voted for the 3 concepts they valued most in medical education research. RESULTS: The 110 survey responses generated a list of 37 overlapping features in 10 categories considered important aspects of quality. The literature search yielded 27 articles, including quality indexes, systematic and narrative reviews, and commentaries. Thirty-two participants, 12 facilitators, and 1 expert observer attended the workshop. Participants endorsed the following features of education research as being most valuable: (1) provocative, novel, or challenged established thinking; (2) adhered to sound research principles; (3) relevant to practice, role, or needs; (4) feasible, practical application in real-world settings; and (5) connection to a conceptual framework. CONCLUSIONS: Medical educators placed high value on rigorous methods and conceptual frameworks, consistent with published quality indexes. They also valued innovative or provocative work, feasibility, and applicability to their setting. End-user opinions of quality may illuminate how educators translate knowledge into practice.
Authors: David A Cook; Judith L Bowen; Martha S Gerrity; Adina L Kalet; Jennifer R Kogan; Anderson Spickard; Diane B Wayne Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Adam P Sawatsky; Thomas J Beckman; Jithinraj Edakkanambeth Varayil; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Darcy A Reed; Amy T Wang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nicole M Dubosh; Jaime Jordan; Lalena M Yarris; Edward Ullman; Joshua Kornegay; Daniel Runde; Amy Miller Juve; Jonathan Fisher Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2018-12-14
Authors: Martijn W J Stommel; Marc G Besselink; Maurice J W Zwart; Leia R Jones; Alberto Balduzzi; Kosei Takagi; Aude Vanlander; Peter B van den Boezem; Freek Daams; Camiel Rosman; Daan J Lips; Arthur J Moser; Melissa E Hogg; Olivier R C Busch Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jaime Jordan; Wendy C Coates; Samuel Clarke; Daniel P Runde; Emilie Fowlkes; Jacqueline Kurth; Lalena M Yarris Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2016-12-05
Authors: Samuel O Clarke; Jaime Jordan; Lalena M Yarris; Emilie Fowlkes; Jaqueline Kurth; Daniel Runde; Wendy C Coates Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2017-11-14
Authors: Jaime Jordan; Wendy C Coates; Samuel Clarke; Daniel Runde; Emilie Fowlkes; Jaqueline Kurth; Lalena Yarris Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2018-03-13