Exploring stakeholders' views of medical education research priorities

a national survey

Ashley A Dennis, Jennifer A Cleland, Peter Johnston, Jean S Ker, Murray Lough, Charlotte E Rees

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

CONTEXT: Setting research priorities is important when exploring complex issues with limited resources. Only two countries (Canada and New Zealand) have previously conducted priority-setting exercises for medical education research (MER). This study aimed to identify the views of multiple stakeholders on MER priorities in Scotland.

METHODS: This study utilised a two-stage design to explore the views of stakeholders across the medical education continuum using online questionnaires. In Stage 1, key informants outlined their top three MER priorities and justified their choices. In Stage 2, participants rated 21 topics generated in Stage 1 according to importance and identified or justified their top priorities. A combination of qualitative (i.e. framework analysis) and quantitative (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) data analyses were employed.

RESULTS: Views were gathered from over 1300 stakeholders. A total of 21 subthemes (or priority areas) identified in Stage 1 were explored further in Stage 2. The 21 items loaded onto five factors: the culture of learning together in the workplace; enhancing and valuing the role of educators; curriculum integration and innovation; bridging the gap between assessment and feedback, and building a resilient workforce. Within Stage 2, the top priority subthemes were: balancing conflicts between service and training; providing useful feedback; promoting resiliency and well-being; creating an effective workplace learning culture; selecting and recruiting doctors to reflect need, and ensuring that curricula prepare trainees for practice. Participant characteristics were related to the perceived importance of the factors. Finally, five themes explaining why participants prioritised items were identified: patient safety; quality of care; investing for the future; policy and political agendas, and evidence-based education.

CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that, across the spectrum of stakeholders and geography, certain MER priorities are consistently identified. These priority areas are in harmony with a range of current drivers in UK medical education. They provide a platform of evidence on which to base decisions about MER programmes in Scotland and beyond.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1078-1091
Number of pages14
JournalMedical Education
Volume48
Issue number11
Early online date12 Oct 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2014

Fingerprint

stakeholder
education
workplace
learning culture
curriculum
political agenda
trainee
evidence
factor analysis
New Zealand
well-being
driver
Canada
educator
geography
innovation
questionnaire
resources
learning

Cite this

Exploring stakeholders' views of medical education research priorities : a national survey. / Dennis, Ashley A; Cleland, Jennifer A; Johnston, Peter; Ker, Jean S; Lough, Murray; Rees, Charlotte E.

In: Medical Education, Vol. 48, No. 11, 11.2014, p. 1078-1091.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dennis, Ashley A ; Cleland, Jennifer A ; Johnston, Peter ; Ker, Jean S ; Lough, Murray ; Rees, Charlotte E. / Exploring stakeholders' views of medical education research priorities : a national survey. In: Medical Education. 2014 ; Vol. 48, No. 11. pp. 1078-1091.
@article{cbaba34a0b704719bf182dd92effc43c,
title = "Exploring stakeholders' views of medical education research priorities: a national survey",
abstract = "CONTEXT: Setting research priorities is important when exploring complex issues with limited resources. Only two countries (Canada and New Zealand) have previously conducted priority-setting exercises for medical education research (MER). This study aimed to identify the views of multiple stakeholders on MER priorities in Scotland.METHODS: This study utilised a two-stage design to explore the views of stakeholders across the medical education continuum using online questionnaires. In Stage 1, key informants outlined their top three MER priorities and justified their choices. In Stage 2, participants rated 21 topics generated in Stage 1 according to importance and identified or justified their top priorities. A combination of qualitative (i.e. framework analysis) and quantitative (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) data analyses were employed.RESULTS: Views were gathered from over 1300 stakeholders. A total of 21 subthemes (or priority areas) identified in Stage 1 were explored further in Stage 2. The 21 items loaded onto five factors: the culture of learning together in the workplace; enhancing and valuing the role of educators; curriculum integration and innovation; bridging the gap between assessment and feedback, and building a resilient workforce. Within Stage 2, the top priority subthemes were: balancing conflicts between service and training; providing useful feedback; promoting resiliency and well-being; creating an effective workplace learning culture; selecting and recruiting doctors to reflect need, and ensuring that curricula prepare trainees for practice. Participant characteristics were related to the perceived importance of the factors. Finally, five themes explaining why participants prioritised items were identified: patient safety; quality of care; investing for the future; policy and political agendas, and evidence-based education.CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that, across the spectrum of stakeholders and geography, certain MER priorities are consistently identified. These priority areas are in harmony with a range of current drivers in UK medical education. They provide a platform of evidence on which to base decisions about MER programmes in Scotland and beyond.",
author = "Dennis, {Ashley A} and Cleland, {Jennifer A} and Peter Johnston and Ker, {Jean S} and Murray Lough and Rees, {Charlotte E}",
note = "{\circledC} 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Acknowledgements: we would like to acknowledge all the members of the Scottish Medical Education Research Consortium (SMERC) who contributed to the project, especially Professor Graham Leese, who contributed significantly to the recruitment of participants and provided helpful comments on drafts of this paper. We would also like to thank Andrew Davis and Jim Ewing for their valuable contributions in helping the Medical Education Research Executive (MERE) develop research streams. Finally, we would like to thank all the medical education stakeholders who took part. Funding: This project was funded through SMERC, which is supported by NHS Education for Scotland (NES).",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/medu.12522",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "1078--1091",
journal = "Medical Education",
issn = "0308-0110",
publisher = "WILEY-BLACKWELL",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring stakeholders' views of medical education research priorities

T2 - a national survey

AU - Dennis, Ashley A

AU - Cleland, Jennifer A

AU - Johnston, Peter

AU - Ker, Jean S

AU - Lough, Murray

AU - Rees, Charlotte E

N1 - © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Acknowledgements: we would like to acknowledge all the members of the Scottish Medical Education Research Consortium (SMERC) who contributed to the project, especially Professor Graham Leese, who contributed significantly to the recruitment of participants and provided helpful comments on drafts of this paper. We would also like to thank Andrew Davis and Jim Ewing for their valuable contributions in helping the Medical Education Research Executive (MERE) develop research streams. Finally, we would like to thank all the medical education stakeholders who took part. Funding: This project was funded through SMERC, which is supported by NHS Education for Scotland (NES).

PY - 2014/11

Y1 - 2014/11

N2 - CONTEXT: Setting research priorities is important when exploring complex issues with limited resources. Only two countries (Canada and New Zealand) have previously conducted priority-setting exercises for medical education research (MER). This study aimed to identify the views of multiple stakeholders on MER priorities in Scotland.METHODS: This study utilised a two-stage design to explore the views of stakeholders across the medical education continuum using online questionnaires. In Stage 1, key informants outlined their top three MER priorities and justified their choices. In Stage 2, participants rated 21 topics generated in Stage 1 according to importance and identified or justified their top priorities. A combination of qualitative (i.e. framework analysis) and quantitative (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) data analyses were employed.RESULTS: Views were gathered from over 1300 stakeholders. A total of 21 subthemes (or priority areas) identified in Stage 1 were explored further in Stage 2. The 21 items loaded onto five factors: the culture of learning together in the workplace; enhancing and valuing the role of educators; curriculum integration and innovation; bridging the gap between assessment and feedback, and building a resilient workforce. Within Stage 2, the top priority subthemes were: balancing conflicts between service and training; providing useful feedback; promoting resiliency and well-being; creating an effective workplace learning culture; selecting and recruiting doctors to reflect need, and ensuring that curricula prepare trainees for practice. Participant characteristics were related to the perceived importance of the factors. Finally, five themes explaining why participants prioritised items were identified: patient safety; quality of care; investing for the future; policy and political agendas, and evidence-based education.CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that, across the spectrum of stakeholders and geography, certain MER priorities are consistently identified. These priority areas are in harmony with a range of current drivers in UK medical education. They provide a platform of evidence on which to base decisions about MER programmes in Scotland and beyond.

AB - CONTEXT: Setting research priorities is important when exploring complex issues with limited resources. Only two countries (Canada and New Zealand) have previously conducted priority-setting exercises for medical education research (MER). This study aimed to identify the views of multiple stakeholders on MER priorities in Scotland.METHODS: This study utilised a two-stage design to explore the views of stakeholders across the medical education continuum using online questionnaires. In Stage 1, key informants outlined their top three MER priorities and justified their choices. In Stage 2, participants rated 21 topics generated in Stage 1 according to importance and identified or justified their top priorities. A combination of qualitative (i.e. framework analysis) and quantitative (e.g. exploratory factor analysis) data analyses were employed.RESULTS: Views were gathered from over 1300 stakeholders. A total of 21 subthemes (or priority areas) identified in Stage 1 were explored further in Stage 2. The 21 items loaded onto five factors: the culture of learning together in the workplace; enhancing and valuing the role of educators; curriculum integration and innovation; bridging the gap between assessment and feedback, and building a resilient workforce. Within Stage 2, the top priority subthemes were: balancing conflicts between service and training; providing useful feedback; promoting resiliency and well-being; creating an effective workplace learning culture; selecting and recruiting doctors to reflect need, and ensuring that curricula prepare trainees for practice. Participant characteristics were related to the perceived importance of the factors. Finally, five themes explaining why participants prioritised items were identified: patient safety; quality of care; investing for the future; policy and political agendas, and evidence-based education.CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that, across the spectrum of stakeholders and geography, certain MER priorities are consistently identified. These priority areas are in harmony with a range of current drivers in UK medical education. They provide a platform of evidence on which to base decisions about MER programmes in Scotland and beyond.

U2 - 10.1111/medu.12522

DO - 10.1111/medu.12522

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 1078

EP - 1091

JO - Medical Education

JF - Medical Education

SN - 0308-0110

IS - 11

ER -