Is checklist an effective tool for teaching research students? A survey-based study

Medical education research quality (MERSQ) checklist development: Are searches of BEME and non-BEME reviews standard?: A mixed method study

Even though there has been a lot of research in medical education, the quality of it has not increased similarly. This study aimed to provide a valid and reliable user-friendly tool for evaluating search strategies in medical education systematic reviews. This mixed study was conducted in 2019 to 2021, including 3 phases: systematic search, developing a medical education research quality (MERSQ) checklist, and evaluation of the search quality of best evidence in medical education collaboration (BEME) and non-BEME reviews. Three hundred nineteen items were retrieved from the systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Psychinfo, ERIC, and Google Scholar. Following ensuring acceptable criteria, 30 items were included in comprehensiveness or reproducibility guarantees. The results showed that the instrument had an the intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.922 (P = .002), the reproducibility guarantee had 0.903 (P = .003), and the comprehensiveness guarantee had 0.926 (P = .006). We also calculated inter-rater reliability and internal consistency using Cronbach alpha of 0.827 (P < .001) and an instrument the intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.978. Using MERSQ, the overall search quality (41.75 vs 31.25, P = .009), reproducibility (22 vs 14.50, P = .004), and comprehensive score (18.75 vs 15.75, P = .880) of BEME studies were higher than non-BEME ones. Moreover, we found only 30% of studies completed searching documents. The search strategy query concerning the selection of synonym terms received the lowest score among studies. This study led to the development of a valid and reliable checklist for evaluating the search quality of medical education systematic reviews. Utilizing the MERSQ checklist, we found that BEME studies had higher quality than non-BEME ones, making the results from BEME studies more reliable.

Implementation of a 4Ms approach in age-friendly oral health care at an Academic Specialty Care Dental Clinic

BACKGROUND

Implementing the Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) framework into dental care provides a significant opportunity to link oral health to healthy aging. This project aimed to implement the AFHS 4Ms (what matters, medications, mentation, and mobility) in the provision of oral health care. This article describes the planning, integration, training development, and outcome measurements supporting a 4Ms approach at an academic dental clinic.

METHODS

The Eastman Institute for Oral Health (EIOH) implemented screening instruments based on the 4Ms framework recommended for ambulatory care clinics by the Institute for Health Care Improvement (IHI). These ambulatory instruments were integrated into the workflows of a Specialty Care Clinic through the development of a plan-do-study-act cycle, utilization of available clinic resources, and creation of interdisciplinary collaborations.

RESULTS

This project demonstrated the feasibility of implementing an AFHS checklist and tracking forms in dental practice by integrating available resources and prioritizing the 4Ms elements. This effort necessitated interdisciplinary collaborations between dental, medical, and social service professionals. It also created a new age-friendly focused education and training curriculum for dental residents and faculty.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot project is the first to establish dental standards for AFHS implementation, adapting the 4Ms assessment and metrics to oral health. This AFHS underscores key oral health processes, including assessment, planning, and personalized oral health care, adapted to the unique needs of the older adult population, especially those with cognitive impairment.