GMS Journal for Medical Education最新文献

The use of patient-related outcomes in medical education research has gained traction over the past 25 years, yet it remains underutilized. In 2001, less than 7% of medical education publications included patient outcomes, despite the goal being the production of high-quality healthcare providers. This commentary discusses common sources of patient outcome data, their applications, and challenges. Administrative databases and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are key sources of data, with PROMs capturing patients' direct reports of their health status. PROMs are particularly useful when administrative data are scarce, such as in Europe. They can be employed to assess a variety of educational impacts, including the effect of physician experience on patient satisfaction and outcomes, as well as error rates in diagnosis and treatment. Challenges in using such data include difficulty identifying appropriate outcomes and attribution of results to individual providers given patient-specific factors and the growing importance of team-based care. Consequently, large numbers of patients are needed to produce meaningful results. Despite these challenges, PROMs hold promise for improving medical education by focusing on what is most important - outcomes for patients.

In recent decades, medical education research has increasingly investigated the subjectivity and viewpoints of (pre-service) healthcare professionals. A promising approach for exploring subjectivity is Q-methodology (Q). Q, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods, involves a card-sorting process in which participants are asked to sort statements into a (normal distribution) grid according to their preferences. Similar sorting patterns are then summarized into profiles and described narratively. A central element of this process is the design of the Q-sample - a set of statements representing a wide range of opinions, beliefs, or perspectives on the subject of study. The Q-sample is, therefore, critical for the success of a Q-study and requires precise development steps. Currently, these steps are only preliminarily described in the literature. The present paper addresses this gap by defining a seven-step approach to Q-sample design based on interview data. It offers a systematic and methodological approach that captures the diversity of viewpoints on a particular research topic. Building on a previous qualitative study, it demonstrates how to translate interview data into a Q-sample while ensuring coverage and balance through the use of a mapping technique. The paper also addresses the significance of editing and how to preserve the everyday language of participants when modifying the Q-sample to facilitate self-reference. A comprehensive overview of the criteria for designing a Q-sample is provided. Practical recommendations for selecting a Q-sample and implementing Q-methodology in medical education are offered, and potential challenges are discussed in detail.

This article explores the question of how document analyses can be used as a research methodology in academic training resp. teaching and learning research. Documents are texts of different origins, types and quality that are not influenced by researchers, were not created for the research itself and can therefore be understood as objectifications of social reality. Therefore, they contain research-relevant information for which certain conditions of origin are unknown at the same time. In academic teaching, documents such as examination regulations often standardise or structure the practice of teaching and learning and are therefore particularly relevant for academic training and teaching-learning research. The decisive factor for the use of document analysis is the research interest. Documents are often used as a first or additional data source. Document analyses are then usually part of a multi-method approach or are used in preparation for further research steps or to examine relevant research results with regard to their significance. The increase in non-textual, multimodal documents means that document analyses are becoming increasingly important as an independent method in research. The article reflects on the method using a case study of a two-stage document analysis in the form of a website analysis and a textual document analysis.

Science is dependent on philosophy for many of its core concepts, for its ongoing development, and for the means to appraise what it does and what it produces. Despite this, medical education scholars often seem to have little grounding in philosophy as it applies to the work they do. In this commentary, the author considers some key philosophical questions related to medical education. For example, what is the purpose of medical education? What are the meanings, uses, and implications of generalizability and the middle-range in medical education? How are theory and practice connected? What are the ontological, epistemological, and axiological capabilities of different theories and methodologies? In what ways and to what ends should knowledge claims be appraised? What are the limitations of science and the knowledge it can produce? What makes a 'good' researcher? Medical education scholars need to be able to answer these kinds of philosophical questions if the quality and utility of medical education science is to be assured.

Background: Medical education research (MER) seeks to contribute to the scientific knowledge in this area and to the further development of educational practice. However, the lack of relevance of the studies conducted in this field has been criticized for years. The present work therefore aims to clarify the tasks and objectives of MER and the nature of research in this area. To this end, the subjects, objectives, and types of research that are common to MER are analyzed and categories for these are developed.

Method: The categories for research subjects and research objectives were developed iteratively in three phases with multiple rounds based on samples of peer-reviewed articles. Depending on the round, two to six people were involved in the independent categorization, finding mutual consent, and further development of the categories. At the same time, research types were defined for MER.

Results: 169 articles were assessed. Eleven subject categories and eight categories of research objectives were identified, and four types of research were defined as relevant.

Discussion: The categories found for research subjects partly coincide with existing category systems but also broaden them. The research objectives identified are more specific than they have been before, which limits the scope for interpretation.

Conclusion: The category systems developed can help to define the subjects and objectives of medical education research more precisely and to differentiate between the research types and their significance. In addition, trends and temporary phenomena can also be depicted using the categories found.

Background: The focus of educational research has shifted from teaching to learning. Psychological theories and methods on student learning are increasingly used in health sciences education (HSE) research. However, applying those theories, methods and practices to HSE poses several challenges.

Key statements: The first challenge relates to theoretical foundations in HSE studies. They are often inadequately described due to differences in writing conventions between psychological and medical disciplines. Moreover, HSE researchers are often trained in medical sciences but not in psychology, leading to potential misconceptions. Interdisciplinary collaboration and more thorough theoretical foundations are essential to overcoming these barriers. The second challenge is implementing effective study designs. HSE research often focuses on improving teaching within individual institutions, but generalizable results require data from multiple institutions. Additionally, HSE researchers without social science training may struggle with study design. Resources for capacity building and systematic educational research are needed, as well as establishing interinstitutional, interdisciplinary networks. The third challenge is the transfer of scientific evidence into educational practice. While it is common sense to provide evidence-based healthcare, less effort is put into providing evidence-based HSE. Quality assurance agencies and ministries can establish regulations pertaining to teacher education to enhance education.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the integration of educational psychology into HSE research poses significant challenges. We need collaborative and interdisciplinary effort, incorporating thorough theoretical frameworks, supportive institutional policies, and effective study designs to address these challenges.

Background: Delphi surveys are becoming increasingly important in medical education research, particularly in the development of curricula, assessment instruments, and recommendations for action. However, due to the flexibility and low standardisation of the method, researchers are faced with the challenge of making numerous methodological decisions before and during a Delphi survey. To ensure a structured and targeted approach, careful planning is essential prior to conducting a Delphi study.

Planning delphi studies: This article describes how to plan Delphi surveys in the following five steps: 1. Suitability and feasibility of the method, 2. Research question and persons involved, 3. Planning of the survey process up to the first round, 4. Evaluation strategies and planning the follow-up rounds, 5. Presentation and dissemination of the results. Each step is structured on the basis of central questions. The most important aspects are summarised in a checklist.

Conclusion: This guide provides researchers with a comprehensive overview of the methodological possibilities and limitations of Delphi surveys, highlighting potential pitfalls. It supports strategic planning and helps researchers to make informed decisions. In the long run, the quality of Delphi studies in medical education research can thus be improved, enabling the method's potential to be realised more effectively.

The purpose of this How-to article is to provide physicians and other health professionals working in the field of medical education research with a basic understanding of the construction of tests or questionnaire measures. The construction of such measures is too complex to be described on a few pages. Therefore, this article can only enable readers to roughly evaluate such measures or to convey an idea of how these are generally constructed. The article outlines various phases of test or questionnaire construction. It begins with the content phase, in which a construct is defined, if possible, by drawing on theories and models. Here, items are written, a response format is selected, the instruction is formulated, and pilot tests are conducted. In the structural phase, the structure of the test or questionnaire is evaluated using suitable test statistical methods and statistical parameters. In the final phase (external phase), additional evidence for the validity of test or questionnaire results is sought. The validation of such measures is not the last step in the construction of tests or questionnaires as it is to be considered in all phases of test or questionnaire construction. The validation of test and questionnaire measures is theoretically and methodically demanding and should never be considered complete. Strictly speaking, it should not be said that a test or questionnaire is valid, because validity is not a property of such measures. It rather is statements and conclusions based on test or questionnaire results that can be valid.

One goal of medical education research is to optimally design teaching and learning processes so that students are supported in acquiring sustainable knowledge and competencies. To this end, education research systematically deals with the conditions and effects of teaching and learning. Therefore, it is situated in the field of teaching and learning research, which is clearly empirically oriented (and not pedagogically-humanistic). This article illuminates the role of empirically tested theories in medical education research using the example of cognitive load theory (CLT). For this purpose, some fundamental aspects of psychological research are discussed first. This is followed by a presentation of CLT, which is based on findings from memory psychology. Based on findings on the modality effect and the split-attention effect, it is illustrated how findings from tested theories can contribute to the development of teaching and learning methods and materials in practice and what limitations exist. Finally, some further developments of CLT and its relevance for medical professionals are presented.