Tanya Horsley1,2, Yvonne Steinert3, Karen Leslie4, Anna Oswald5, Farah Friesen6, Rachel H Ellaway7. 1. Research Unit, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. 2. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Institute of Health Sciences Education and Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 4. Centre for Faculty Development and Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 6. Centre for Faculty Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto at St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 7. Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Abstract
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.
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.
Keywords:
Medical education research; bibliometric analysis; evidence syntheses