A scoping review of medical education research in family medicine

BMC Medical Education

Cynthia Whitehead²  Jessica Bytautas³  Deanna Telner²  Douglas Archibald⁴  Heather MacDonald¹  Paul Krueger²  Fiona Webster² 

[1] Health and BioSciences, Reference Services, Carlton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, K1S 5B6, ON, Canada;Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, M5G 1V7, ON, Canada;Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, M5T 3M6, ON, Canada;Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, 43 Bruyere Street, Floor 3JB, Ottawa, K1N 5C8, ON, Canada

关键词: Scoping review;    Family medicine;    Medical education research;   

Others  :  1206348
DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-015-0350-1

 received in 2014-11-09, accepted in 2015-03-26,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Little is known about the state of education research within family medicine. As family medicine education models develop, it is important to develop an understanding of the current state of this research and develop ways to advance the field.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of family medicine education research to describe 1) research topic areas and 2) the methodologies and methods used to study these topics. MEDLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts and ERIC electronic databases were searched. 817 full text articles from 2002 to 2012 were screened; 624 articles were included in the review.

Results

The following research topic areas were identified: continuing education, curriculum development, undergraduate education, teaching methods, assessment techniques, selection of entrants, non-clinical skills, professional and faculty development, clinical decision-making and resident well-being. Quantitative studies comprised the large majority of research approaches; overall minimal methodological details were provided.

Conclusions

Our review highlights an overall need for increased sophisticated in methodological approaches to education research in family medicine, a problem that could be ameliorated by multiple strategies including better engagement of methodologists throughout the research process. The results provide guidance for future family medicine education research programs.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Webster et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Norman G. Research in medical education: three decades of progress. BMJ. 2002; 324:1560-2.
• [2]Rotgans JI. The themes, institutions, and people of medical research 1988–2010: content analysis of abstracts from six journals. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012; 17:515-27.
• [3]Lee K, Whelan J, Tannery N, Kanter S, Peters A. 50 years of publication in the field of medical education. Med Teach. 2013; 35(7):591-8.
• [4]Eva KW. Broadening the debate about quality in medical education research. Med Educ. 2009; 43:294-6.
• [5]Regehr G. Trends in medical education research. Acad Med. 2004; 79(10):939-47.
• [6]Todres M, Stephenson A, Jones R. Medical education research remains the poor relation. BMJ. 2007; 335:333-5.
• [7]Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008; 42(2):128-33.
• [8]Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G. Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2007; 41(8):737-45.
• [9]Cook DA, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Hatala R. Mastery learning for health professionals using technology-enhanced simulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2013; 88(8):1178-86.
• [10]Williams CK, Hui Y, Borschel D, Carnahan H. A scoping review of undergraduate ambulatory care education. Med Teach. 2013; 35(6):444-53.
• [11]Starfield B, Shi L. Policy relevant determinants of health: an international perspective. Health Policy. 2002; 60:201-18.
• [12]Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005; 83(3):457-502.
• [13]Goldman J, Meuser J, Lawrie L, Rogers J, Reeves S. Interprofessional primary care protocols: A strategy to promote an evidence-based approach to teamwork and the delivery of care. J Interprof Care. 2010; 24(6):653-65.
• [14]Fooks C. Implementing Primary Care Reform in Canada: Barriers and Facilitators. School of Policy Studies Queen's University: McGill-Queen's University Press; 2003.
• [15]Tannenbaum D, Kerr J, Konkin J, Organek A, Parsons E, Saucier D et al.. Triple C competency-based curriculum. Report of the Working Group on Postgraduate Curriculum Review - Part 1. Colege of Family Physicians of Canada, Mississauga, Ontario; 2011.
• [16]Estabrooks C. Prologue: a program of research in knowledge translation. Nurs Res. 2007; 56:4S.
• [17]Gagliardi A, Wright F, Grunfeld E, Davis D. Colorectal cancer care knowledge mapping: identifying priorities for knowledge translation research. Cancer Causes Control. 2008; 19(6):615-30.
• [18]Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1):19-32.
• [19]Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5:69. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Collins J. Medical education research: challenges and opportunities. Radiology. 2006; 240(3):639-47.
• [21]Davis D, Bordage G, Moores LK, Bennett N, Marinopoulos SS, Mazmanian PE et al.. The science of continuing medical education: terms, tools, and gaps: effectiveness of continuing medical education: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Educational Guidelines. Chest. 2009; 135:8S-16.
• [22]Hodges BD, Albert M, Arweiler D, Akseer S, Bandiera G, Byrne N et al.. The future of medical education: a Canadian environmental scan. Med Educ. 2011; 45:95-106.
• [23]Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Blackwell Publishing, Massachusetts; 2006.
• [24]Crotty M. The foundations of social research. Sage Publications Ltd, London; 1998.
• [25]Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ. 2010; 44:358-66.
• [26]Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods in Qualitative Evaluation. 3rd ed. Sage Publications, CA; 2002.
• [27]Oakleaf M. Value of academic libraries, a comprehensive research review and report. Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago; 2010.
• [28]Eva K, Lingard L. What’s next? A guiding question for educators engaged in educational research. Med Educ. 2008; 42:752-4.
• [29]Albert M, Hodges B, Rehehr G. Research in medical education: balancing service and science. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007; 12:103-15.
• [30]Sherbino J. Education scholarship: the next steo for our specialty. CJEM. 2010; 12(14):347-8.
• [31]Whitcomb M. Research in medical education: what do we know about the link between what doctors are taught and what they do? Acad Med. 2002; 77(11):1067.