Advancing collaboration in health professions education in the general practice domain, developing a national research agenda

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Esther de Groot, Marianne Mak-van der Vossen, Irene Slootweg, Meryem Çorum, Anneke Kramer, Jean Muris, Nynke Scherpbier, Bart Thoonen, Roger Damoiseaux
{"title":"Advancing collaboration in health professions education in the general practice domain, developing a national research agenda","authors":"Esther de Groot,&nbsp;Marianne Mak-van der Vossen,&nbsp;Irene Slootweg,&nbsp;Meryem Çorum,&nbsp;Anneke Kramer,&nbsp;Jean Muris,&nbsp;Nynke Scherpbier,&nbsp;Bart Thoonen,&nbsp;Roger Damoiseaux","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10340-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Health professions education (HPE) research in the General Practice domain (GP-HPE) is vital for high-quality healthcare. Collaboration among GP-HPE researchers is crucial but challenging. Formulating a research agenda, involving stakeholders, and fostering inter-institutional collaboration can address these challenges and connect educational research and practice.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used Q-methodology to explore perspectives on GP-HPE research of participants from all Dutch postgraduate GP training institutes. Participants individually sorted statements based on the relevance of future GP-HPE research for educational practice. Data analysis comprised inverted factor analysis, rotation, and qualitative interpretation of configurations of all statements. The National Meeting on Educational Research took a participatory approach.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 73 participants with diverse involvement in GP-HPE research. We identified five distinct perspectives, each representing a research focus area for developing and innovating GP education: the clinician scientist, the socially engaged GP, the specific GP identity, the GP as an entrepreneur, and the GP engaged in lifelong learning.</p><h3>Discussion</h3><p>The resulting five perspectives align with General Practice hallmarks. Q-methodology and a participatory approach facilitated collaboration among stakeholders. Successful inter-institutional collaboration requires a common goal, neutral leadership, participant commitment, regular meetings, audit trail support, process transparency, and reflexivity. Future research should address evidence gaps within these perspectives.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Using Q-methodology turned out to be valuable for compiling a national research agenda for GP-HPE research. The research process helped to cross boundaries between researchers in different institutions, thus putting inter-institutional collaborative advantage center stage. Our approach could provide a conceivable procedure for HPE researchers worldwide.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1417 - 1434"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369045/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-024-10340-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Health professions education (HPE) research in the General Practice domain (GP-HPE) is vital for high-quality healthcare. Collaboration among GP-HPE researchers is crucial but challenging. Formulating a research agenda, involving stakeholders, and fostering inter-institutional collaboration can address these challenges and connect educational research and practice.

Methods

We used Q-methodology to explore perspectives on GP-HPE research of participants from all Dutch postgraduate GP training institutes. Participants individually sorted statements based on the relevance of future GP-HPE research for educational practice. Data analysis comprised inverted factor analysis, rotation, and qualitative interpretation of configurations of all statements. The National Meeting on Educational Research took a participatory approach.

Results

We included 73 participants with diverse involvement in GP-HPE research. We identified five distinct perspectives, each representing a research focus area for developing and innovating GP education: the clinician scientist, the socially engaged GP, the specific GP identity, the GP as an entrepreneur, and the GP engaged in lifelong learning.

Discussion

The resulting five perspectives align with General Practice hallmarks. Q-methodology and a participatory approach facilitated collaboration among stakeholders. Successful inter-institutional collaboration requires a common goal, neutral leadership, participant commitment, regular meetings, audit trail support, process transparency, and reflexivity. Future research should address evidence gaps within these perspectives.

Conclusion

Using Q-methodology turned out to be valuable for compiling a national research agenda for GP-HPE research. The research process helped to cross boundaries between researchers in different institutions, thus putting inter-institutional collaborative advantage center stage. Our approach could provide a conceivable procedure for HPE researchers worldwide.

推进全科实践领域的卫生专业教育合作,制定国家研究议程。
背景:全科领域的健康职业教育(HPE)研究对于高质量的医疗保健至关重要。GP-HPE 研究人员之间的合作至关重要,但也极具挑战性。制定研究议程、让利益相关者参与进来以及促进机构间合作可以应对这些挑战,并将教育研究与实践联系起来:我们使用 Q 方法探讨了荷兰所有全科医生研究生培训机构的参与者对 GP-HPE 研究的看法。参与者根据未来 GP-HPE 研究与教育实践的相关性对陈述进行单独排序。数据分析包括倒置因子分析、旋转和对所有陈述配置的定性分析。全国教育研究会议采用了参与式方法:我们邀请了 73 位参与 GP-HPE 研究的不同参与者。我们确定了五个不同的视角,每个视角都代表了发展和创新全科医生教育的一个研究重点领域:临床科学家、全科医生的社会参与、全科医生的特定身份、全科医生作为企业家以及全科医生的终身学习:讨论:由此产生的五个视角符合全科医生的特点。Q 方法和参与式方法促进了利益相关者之间的合作。成功的机构间合作需要共同的目标、中立的领导、参与者的承诺、定期会议、审计跟踪支持、过程透明度和反思性。未来的研究应解决这些方面的证据差距:使用 Q 方法对于编制 GP-HPE 研究的国家研究议程很有价值。研究过程有助于跨越不同机构研究人员之间的界限,从而将机构间的合作优势置于中心位置。我们的方法可以为全世界的 HPE 研究人员提供一个可想象的程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信