Opportunities for building medical education research capacity: A mixed methods study
Background: Providing evidence-based, high-quality medical education requires asolid research base with ongoing development. Academic teachers in medical schools are expected to establish and maintain research involvement as part of their university appointment. This paper used a mix of methods to explore teaching interest as a vehicle for increasing research capacity among clinician teachers.
Methods: Ten clinician teachers participated in semi-structured one-on-one interviews exploring their experiences and attitudes to medical education and biomedical research. Data were analysed thematically. From this, a quantitative survey focusing on clinical teachers’ research interest and involvement was developed and administered across the medical school.
Results: Two common themes from the interviews were an expressed interest in participating in medical education research and a perceived value and relevance to clinician teachers’ academic appointments. The two major inhibiting factors that were identified were a lack of time and unclear pathways to research participation. Of those surveyed, 51% were currently involved in research and 24% were interested in becoming involved in research. Perceived barriers to research participation were time (73%), lack of skills (22%) and funding (36%).
Conclusions: Increasing teacher participation in medical education research represents a significant untapped source of research output for the school, an area of important professional development for the teachers and an avenue for attaining excellence in education for the students and the institution. These are in addition to the opportunity to contribute to scholarship in teaching and learning.
Ahmed, R. A., Farooq, A., Oswald, A. E., Storie, D., Hartling, L., & Rourke, L. (2016). Building capacity for education research among clinical educators in the health professions: A BEME (Best Evidence Medical Education) systematic review of the outcomes of interventions. BEME Guide No. 34. Medical Teacher, 38(2), 123–136.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Cooke, J. A. (2005). A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Family Practice, 6, 44. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-6-44
De Vito, C., Nobile, C. G., Furnari, G., Pavia, M., De Giusti, M., Angelillo, I. F., & Villari, P. (2009). Physicians' knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta analyses: A cross-sectional survey. European Journal of Public Health, 19(3), 297–302.
Fincher, R-M. E., Simpson, D. E., Mennin, S. P., Rosenfeld, G. C., Rothman, A., McGrew, M. C., . . . Turnbull, J. M. (2000). Scholarship in teaching: An imperative for the 21st century. Academic Medicine, 75(9), 887–894.
Fritsche, L., Greenhalgh, T., Flack-Ytter, Y., Neumayer, H. H., & Kunz, R. (2002). Do short courses in evidence based medicine improve knowledge and skills? Validation of Berlin questionnaire and before and after study of courses in evidence based medicine. BMJ, 325(7376), 1338–1341.
Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 117. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117
Glassick, C. E. (2000). Boyer’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic Medicine, 75(9), 877–880.
Hu, W. C. Y., McColl, G. J., Thistlethwaite, J. E., Schuwirth, L. W. T., & Wilkinson, T. (2013). Where is the next generation of medical educators? MJA, 198(1), 8–9.
European Science Foundation. (2012). Medical research education in Europe: Science policy briefing 46. Retrieved from http://archives.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/spb46_MedResEurope.pdf
McColl, A., Smith, H., White, P., & Field, J. (1998). General practitioners’ perceptions of the route to evidence based medicine: A questionnaire survey. BMJ, 316(7128), 361–365.
Morahan, P. S., & Fleetwood, J. (2008). The double helix of activity and scholarship:Building a medical education career with limited resources. Medical Education, 42(1), 34–44. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02976.x
Probert, B. (2014). Why scholarship matters in higher education. Sydney, NSW: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT). Retrieved from http://www.
Richlin, L. (2001). Scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2001(86), 57–68.
Van Melle, E., Curran, V., Goldszmidt, M. A., Lieff, S., Lockyer, J. M., & St-Onge, C. (2012). Toward a common understanding: Advancing education scholarship for clinical faculty in Canadian medical schools. A position paper. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Association for Medical Education. Retrieved from http://www.came-acem.ca/pubs_position_papers_en.php
Varpio, L., Gruppen, L., Hu, W., O'Brien, B., Ten Cate, O., Humphrey-Murto, S.,. . . Durning, S. J. (2017). Working definitions of the roles and an organizational structure in health professions education scholarship: Initiating an international conversation. Academic Medicine, 92(2), 205208.
Vo, H., Carr, S. E., & Miller, S. (2014). Doctors’ perception of educational continuing professional development. Focus on Health Professional Education, 15(3), 1–10.
Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (n.d.). Research skill development (RSD) framework. Retrieved from https://www.adelaide.edu.au/rsd/framework/rsd-framework.pdf
Windish, D. M., Huot, S. J., & Green, M. L. (2007). Medicine residents' understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. JAMA, 298(9), 1010–1022.
- There are currently no refbacks.