Medisinsk pedagogikk som forskningsfelt i Norge ­ en bibliometrisk studie.

BACKGROUND: Medical education is a growing international field of research. However, no overview exists of Norwegian researchers' contribution to the field. This study aimed to identify and describe medical education research originating from Norwegian research institutions. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We performed targeted searches in Web of Science, PubMed, ProQuest Education and Cristin, and identified published research within the field from Norwegian institutions. Using bibliometric analyses, we mapped patterns in research output over time, research communities that have published their work, and which publication channels were used. We also categorized the research articles according to methodology, empirical origin, educational level and topic. RESULTS: We found 423 published research articles linked to Norwegian research institutions and an increase in the number of publications in the last decade. The studies were published in 141 different scientific journals. Of these, the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association had 94 articles (22 %). A total of 122 (29 %) articles were published in key medical education journals. Altogether 249 (59 %) of the studies were quantitative and 262 (62 %) were based on empirical data from Norway. A little more than half, 237 (56 %), focused on undergraduate medical education. Researchers affiliated to the University of Oslo were involved in 173 (43 %) articles. The most frequently researched topics were curricula, teaching and learning technology, retention and career choices. INTERPRETATION: Research activity within the field of medical education is increasing in Norway, but few Norwegian researchers publish in the specialised medical education journals.

Educational supervision in internal medicine residency training - a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Although supervision is an important part of residency training, its scope and how it relates to other types of support, such as mentoring, precepting and feedback, remain unclear. While clinical supervision consists of ongoing instructions and feedback in the workplace setting, educational supervision is a formalized component of postgraduate medical educational and supports the process that facilitates a trainee's progression throughout their training. Since medical specialties have different supervisory traditions, this study focuses on educational supervision in internal medicine. Our aim was to investigate what is known about educational supervision practices in internal medicine and the role of educational supervision in supporting residents' learning. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature on educational supervision in residency training in internal medicine based on Levac et al.'s modification of Arksey and O'Malley's six-step framework. The literature search was performed in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Educational Resources Information Center. In addition, we conducted a handsearch in Medical Teacher and Google Scholar. We followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic research. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 3,284 identified articles were included in the analysis. We found few empirical studies describing how educational supervision is conducted and what effect routine educational supervision has on residents' learning. Our findings suggest that the terminology can be confusing and that educational supervision practices in internal medicine has a weak theoretical foundation. CONCLUSION: The distinction between educational supervision and other support structures, such as mentoring and feedback, has not been clearly defined in the research literature. We argue that shared terminology is needed to better understand current educational practices and to facilitate clear communication about how to help residents learn.

Why are doctors opting out of general practice? / Hvorfor velger leger seg bort fra allmennmedisin?

BACKGROUND: There has been a sustained focus on the lack of recruitment to general practice in Norwegian politics, media and research. We have little knowledge of the reasons that have been prominent for doctors who have actively opted out of general practice. We therefore wished to investigate what types of doctors choose not to work in general practice and why. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The data are based on a questionnaire that was sent to the 2 195 members of the Medical Panel in 2016/17. The response rate was 73.1 %. We used graphics and descriptive analyses to study inter-group differences between those who had considered general practice but made another choice, and those who had quit general practice. RESULTS: Of the 1 153 doctors who were not general practitioners, 44.1 % had not considered this as an option. 39.9 % had considered it, but chosen differently, and 16.0 % had previously worked as GPs, but quit. The administrative burden and small professional community were the main reasons for doctors to opt out of general practice. INTERPRETATION: The administrative burden and small professional community were key reasons why doctors opted out of general practice or quit the specialty. A number of other factors also played a role, and the efforts to recruit and retain GPs should therefore be seen in a wider and more overarching context.