Differing viewpoints around healthcare professions' education research priorities: A Q-methodology approach.

Recently, due to scarce resources and the need to provide an evidence-base for healthcare professions' education (HPE), HPE research centres internationally have turned to identifying priorities for their research efforts. Engaging a range of stakeholders in research priority setting exercises has been posited as one way to address the issues around reducing researcher bias and increasing social accountability. However, assigning individuals to single a priori stakeholder groups is complex, with previous research overlooking cross-category membership and agreement between individuals across groups. Further, analyses have pitched stakeholder groups against one another in an attempt to understand who prioritises what, and often fails to grasp rationales underlying priorities. A deeper understanding of who prioritises what research areas and why is required to consider applicability of results across contexts and deepen social accountability and transferability. A web-based Q-methodological approach with n=91 participants (who) from ten pre-classified stakeholder groups was employed with post-sort interviews (why). Sixty-seven Q-set items (Chinese/English languages) were developed from previous research (what). Participants were mainly from Taiwan, although international researchers were included. Q-sorting was undertaken in groups or individually, followed by post-sort interviews. Eighty-six participants' Q-sorts were included in the final analysis. Intercorrelations among Q-sorts were factor-analysed (Centroid method) and rotated analytically (Varimax method). Interviews were thematically analysed. Six Viewpoints with eigenvalues exceeding 1 were identified (range = 3.55-10.34; 42% total variance; 35/67 topics), mapping high/low priorities for research foci: Workplace teaching and learning; Patient dignity and healthcare safety; Professionalism and healthcare professionals' development; Medical ethics and moral development; Healthcare professionals' retention and success; Preparing for clinical practice. Eighteen rationales for prioritisation were identified: impact, organisational culture and deficit of educators/practitioners were most highly cited. Each Viewpoint, held by multiple stakeholders, comprised a unique set of topic-groupings, target study participants, beneficiaries and rationales. The two most prolific Viewpoints represent how different stakeholder groups highlight key complementary perspectives of healthcare professions' education in the workplace (efficacy of teaching/learning practices, application of knowledge/values). By illuminating the detail around each Viewpoint, and presenting an holistic description of the who-what-why in research priority setting, others wishing to undertake such an exercise can more easily identify how stakeholder Viewpoints and their epistemic beliefs can help shape healthcare professions' research agendas more generally.

A scoping review examining funding trends in health care professions education research from Taiwan (2006-2017).

BACKGROUND: Traditionally health care professions education research (HCPER) is poorly funded, despite it being key to success. PURPOSE: This unique study maps HCPER evolution within a single country during a period when significant national governmental HCPER funding is introduced. METHODS: A scoping review method examined Taiwan's HCPER landscape across 12-years. Literature searches across four databases (OVID Medline; Scopus; Web of Science; the Airiti Library), a manual scan of HCPE journals and hand searches. Endnote and ATLAS.ti managed the data. Demographic and content codes were developed. PRISMA guidelines are used. DISCUSSION: One thousand four hundred and ten articles across 310 journals, with a steady rise in funded studies. Science/Social Science Citation Index and English language publications increased. Nursing Students/Nurses and Medical Students/Physicians are the most common populations. Significant associations with funding was found for indexed and English language publications. National funding influenced quality and local funding positively. CONCLUSION: Caution around local vs. global needs is highlighted and national funding policies for HCPER are advocated.