Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects. METHODS: Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master's degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.

Further dissemination of medical education projects after presentation at a pediatric national meeting (1998-2008).

BACKGROUND: Further dissemination of medical education work presented at national meetings is limited. PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to explore dissemination outcomes of scholarly work in pediatric medical education. METHODS: Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics (COMSEP) members who presented at COMSEP national meetings from 1998 to 2008 received a questionnaire about scholarly dissemination outcomes. Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis explored variables related to dissemination. Qualitative analysis of free text comments explored barriers to dissemination. RESULTS: Outcomes were determined for 81% of presentations (138/171). The dissemination rate was 67% (92/138 presentations), with 47 publications (34%). Dissemination rates did not vary by presentation type (poster vs. oral) or project type. There was no relationship between presentation type, project type, and dissemination method. Barriers included perceived inadequate time, mentorship, and methodological skills for scholarly work. CONCLUSIONS: Most projects were further disseminated. Additional resources including mentoring and protected time for scholarly work are needed by educators to optimize dissemination.

The Boston Marathon Study: a novel approach to research during residency.

Resident physicians from a pediatric academic training program developed a hospital-wide research project in an effort to enhance their residency research experience. In this model, residents themselves assumed primary responsibility for each stage of a large prospective clinical research study. The project, which was integrated successfully into the residency program, enabled a large group of residents, with mentorship from a dedicated faculty member, to benefit from a structured clinical research experience while providing the flexibility necessary to meet the demands of a busy residency curriculum. Careful topic selection with a well-defined end point, faculty involvement, resident collegiality, and institutional support were factors identified by study leaders as central to the success of this model.