May: a month of myths

What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article.

METHODS

Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection.

RESULTS

Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

Using Group Concept Mapping to Explore Medical Education's Blind Spots

PHENOMENON

All individuals and groups have blind spots that can lead to mistakes, perpetuate biases, and limit innovations. The goal of this study was to better understand how blind spots manifest in medical education by seeking them out in the U.S.

APPROACH

We conducted group concept mapping (GCM), a research method that involves brainstorming ideas, sorting them according to conceptual similarity, generating a point map that represents consensus among sorters, and interpreting the cluster maps to arrive at a final concept map. Participants in this study were stakeholders from the U.S. medical education system (i.e., learners, educators, administrators, regulators, researchers, and commercial resource producers) and those from the broader U.S. health system (i.e., patients, nurses, public health professionals, and health system administrators). All participants brainstormed ideas to the focus prompt: "To educate physicians who can meet the health needs of patients in the U.S. health system, medical education should become less blind to (or pay more attention to) …" Responses to this prompt were reviewed and synthesized by our study team to prepare them for sorting, which was done by a subset of participants from the medical education system. GCM software combined sorting solutions using a multidimensional scaling analysis to produce a point map and performed cluster analyses to generate cluster solution options. Our study team reviewed and interpreted all cluster solutions from five to 25 clusters to decide upon the final concept map.

FINDINGS

Twenty-seven stakeholders shared 298 blind spots during brainstorming. To decrease redundancy, we reduced these to 208 in preparation for sorting. Ten stakeholders independently sorted the blind spots, and the final concept map included 9 domains and 72 subdomains of blind spots that related to (1) admissions processes; (2) teaching practices; (3) assessment and curricular designs; (4) inequities in education and health; (5) professional growth and identity formation; (6) patient perspectives; (7) teamwork and leadership; (8) health systems care models and financial practices; and (9) government and business policies.

INSIGHTS

Soliciting perspectives from diverse stakeholders to identify blind spots in medical education uncovered a wide array of issues that deserve more attention. The concept map may also be used to help prioritize resources and direct interventions that can stimulate change and bring medical education into better alignment with the health needs of patients and communities.

Blind spots in medical education: how can we envision new possibilities?

As human beings, we all have blind spots. Most obvious are our visual blind spots, such as where the optic nerve meets the retina and our inability to see behind us. It can be more difficult to acknowledge our other types of blind spots, like unexamined beliefs, assumptions, or biases. While each individual has blind spots, groups can share blind spots that limit change and innovation or even systematically disadvantage certain other groups. In this article, we provide a definition of blind spots in medical education, and offer examples, including unfamiliarity with the evidence and theory informing medical education, lack of evidence supporting well-accepted and influential practices, significant absences in our scholarly literature, and the failure to engage patients in curriculum development and reform. We argue that actively helping each other see blind spots may allow us to avoid pitfalls and take advantage of new opportunities for advancing medical education scholarship and practice. When we expand our collective field of vision, we can also envision more "adjacent possibilities," future states near enough to be considered but not so distant as to be unimaginable. For medical education to attend to its blind spots, there needs to be increased participation among all stakeholders and a commitment to acknowledging blind spots even when that may cause discomfort. Ultimately, the better we can see blind spots and imagine new possibilities, the more we will be able to adapt, innovate, and reform medical education to prepare and sustain a physician workforce that serves society's needs.

The promise of a health professions education imagination

CONTEXT

Social factors play a key role in health professions education and are thus a foundational topic that medical trainees must be taught. Although medical educators have discussed the best ways to teach these concepts for decades, there are still significant barriers to full incorporation of 'the social' into medical training.

FRAMEWORK

Building upon previous scholarship in medical education, the author argues for the development in trainees of a 'health professions education imagination' or a unique 'quality of mind' that facilitates navigating competing ways of knowing. This concept borrows explicitly from 'the sociological imagination', which is briefly described. Next, some of the principles of thinking that might contribute to a similar 'imagination' in health professions education are identified. Finally, exemplars are provided highlighting how recent scholars have used their health professions education imaginations in recent research and teaching practice.

IMPLICATIONS

The health professions education imagination provides a useful framework to help guide clinical and research trainees to integrate the epistemologically diverse forms of knowledge they are exposed to and to break down the silos that these forms of knowledge are commonly taught within.

Health professions education scholarship: The emergence, current status, and future of a discipline in its own right

Medical education, as a domain of scholarly pursuit, has enjoyed a remarkably rapid development in the past 70 years and is now more commonly known as health professions education (HPE) scholarship. Evidenced by a solid increase of publications, numbers of specialized journals, professional associations, national and international conferences, academies for medical educators, masters and doctoral courses, and the establishment of many units of HPE scholarship, the domain of HPE education scholarship has matured into a scholarly discipline in its own right. In this contribution, the author reviews the developments of the field from Boyer's four criteria that determine scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. Born mid-20th century, and in the first decades developed in the predominant area of physician education, HPE scholarship has matured, with increasing breadth, depth, and volume of scholars, publications, conferences, and dedicated centers for research and development. The author concludes that, given the infrastructure that has emerged, HPE can arguably be considered a discipline in its own right. This academic question may not matter hugely for practices of scholarly work in this domain, and any stance in this academic debate inevitably reflects a personal view, but the author would support the view of health professions scholarship as being a unique niche, with inherent dependence on both medical and other health professional sciences, on the one hand, and social sciences, including educational sciences, on the other hand.

Tackling the void: the importance of addressing absences in the field of health professions education research

Many processes and practices in the field of health professions education have been based more on tradition and assumption than on evidence and theory. As the field matures, researchers are increasingly seeking evidence to support various teaching and assessment methods. However, there is a tendency to focus on a limited set of topics, leaving other areas under-examined and limiting our understanding of the field. By explicitly examining areas that are undescribed, i.e. absences in the literature, researchers and scholars have the potential to enrich our practice and our field's understanding of what counts as legitimate research. Using the theoretical framework of Bourdieu's concept of field, we conducted an instrumental case study of three published research projects that each had a finding of absence. We examined each case individually, and then analyzed across cases. Our dataset included published papers, peer-review feedback, and reflective notes. Each of the cases interrogated a different form of absence: absence of content, absence of research, and absence of evidence. While the typology suggests that each absence was different, there were similarities across cases in terms of challenges in 'proving' the reality of the absence and some disbelief or discomfort with accepting the findings as rigorous and/or legitimate. Absence research has potential to add to our theoretical and methodological approaches to the field. This type of research is potentially an exciting and productive new way for scholars to shed light on aspects of health professions education that have received limited attention to date.