Educational epidemiology - Applying population-based design and analytic approaches to stuffy medical education

Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 10/2004; 292(9):1044-50. DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.9.1044
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Conducting educational research in medical schools is challenging partly because interventional controlled research designs are difficult to apply. In addition, strict accreditation requirements and student/faculty concerns about educational inequality reduce the flexibility needed to plan and execute educational experiments. Consequently, there is a paucity of rigorous and generalizable educational research to provide an evidence-guided foundation to support educational effectiveness. "Educational epidemiology," ie, the application across the physician education continuum of observational designs (eg, cross-sectional, longitudinal, cohort, and case-control studies) and randomized experimental designs (eg, randomized controlled trials, randomized crossover designs), could revolutionize the conduct of research in medical education. Furthermore, the creation of a comprehensive national network of educational epidemiologists could enhance collaboration and the development of a strong educational research foundation.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research in medical education has been paid more attention than before; however the quality of research reporting has not been comprehensively appraised. To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of Iranian published medical education articles. Articles describing medical students, residents, fellows or program evaluation were included. Articles related to continuing medical education or faculty development, review articles and reports, and studies considering both medical and nonmedical students were excluded. We searched MEDLINE through PubMed in addition to major Iranian medical education search engines and databases including Scientific Information Database (SID) from March 2003 to March 2008. The Medical Education Research Quality Index (MERSQI) scale and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2001) were used for experimental studies and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) was utilized for observational studies. Ninety five articles were found to be related to the medical education research in Iran including 16 (16.8%) experimental studies. Total MERSQI scores ranged between 3.82 and 13.09 with the mean of 8.39 points. Mean domain scores were highest for data analysis (1.85) and lowest for validity (0.61). The most frequently reported item was background (96%) and the least reported was the study limitations (16%). The quality of published medical education research in Iran seems to be suboptimal.
    Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 01/2014; 28:79.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Incomplete reporting hampers the evaluation of results and bias in clinical research studies. Guidelines for reporting study design and methods have been developed to encourage authors and journals to include the required elements. Recent efforts have been made to standardize the reporting of clinical health research including clinical guidelines. In this article, the reporting of diagnostic test accuracy studies, screening studies, therapeutic studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness assessments (CEA), recommendations and/or guidelines, and medical education studies is discussed. The available guidelines, many of which can be found at the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research network, on how to report these different types of health research are also discussed. We also hope that this article can be used in academic programs to educate the faculty and trainees of the available resources to improve our health research.
    Academic Radiology 09/2014; 21(9):1088–1116. DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2014.04.016 · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • Medical Education 09/2014; 48(9). DOI:10.1111/medu.12484 · 3.62 Impact Factor