Quality, Quantity, Scope, and Trends for Research on Student-Run Clinics in the United States: A Scoping Review of the Existing Literature.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Nicholas Peoples, Alexandra Alvarez, Shiwei Wang, Emily Wang, Ashley Ricciardelli, Shangzhi Xiong, Dana Clark
{"title":"Quality, Quantity, Scope, and Trends for Research on Student-Run Clinics in the United States: A Scoping Review of the Existing Literature.","authors":"Nicholas Peoples, Alexandra Alvarez, Shiwei Wang, Emily Wang, Ashley Ricciardelli, Shangzhi Xiong, Dana Clark","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study characterizes the quality, quantity, scope, and trends for literature on student-run clinics (SRCs) in the United States.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for publications concerning SRCs in the United States involving MD and DO students for all years up to March 1, 2024, and every publication from the Journal of Student Run Clinics and Free Clinic Research Collective. The authors used inductive analysis to identify literature themes and performed a standardized methodological quality assessment for research articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 7,584 results, the search identified 503 publications, including 278 primary research (55%), 14 reviews (3%), and 211 nonresearch (42%) (e.g., viewpoint articles). Most research was cross-sectional (160 of 292 [55%]) and of low methodological quality (195 of 282 [69%]; 10 studies excluded from quality assessment). Volunteer outcomes were most studied (n = 97), with volunteer satisfaction (n = 62) being the most studied topic. Patient clinical (n = 42) and behavioral (n = 21) outcomes were studied less. Of the 278 primary research articles, 237 (85%) concerned individual clinics and 91 (33%) were produced by 10 institutions. Underrepresented topics include ethics, policy, social work, community participatory research, and national studies of SRCs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the rapid growth of SRCs and publications describing them, quality research is lacking, and patient outcome data are limited. The literature has high representation bias, where existing evidence disproportionately describes a small subset of institutions. Most SRCs have not published empiric data and most research is nongeneralizable to other SRCs, limiting the overall understanding of these clinics. These findings underscore clear priorities for developing the knowledge base for this rapidly growing component of the U.S. safety net health care system.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006109","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study characterizes the quality, quantity, scope, and trends for literature on student-run clinics (SRCs) in the United States.

Method: Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors searched PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for publications concerning SRCs in the United States involving MD and DO students for all years up to March 1, 2024, and every publication from the Journal of Student Run Clinics and Free Clinic Research Collective. The authors used inductive analysis to identify literature themes and performed a standardized methodological quality assessment for research articles.

Results: Of 7,584 results, the search identified 503 publications, including 278 primary research (55%), 14 reviews (3%), and 211 nonresearch (42%) (e.g., viewpoint articles). Most research was cross-sectional (160 of 292 [55%]) and of low methodological quality (195 of 282 [69%]; 10 studies excluded from quality assessment). Volunteer outcomes were most studied (n = 97), with volunteer satisfaction (n = 62) being the most studied topic. Patient clinical (n = 42) and behavioral (n = 21) outcomes were studied less. Of the 278 primary research articles, 237 (85%) concerned individual clinics and 91 (33%) were produced by 10 institutions. Underrepresented topics include ethics, policy, social work, community participatory research, and national studies of SRCs.

Conclusions: Despite the rapid growth of SRCs and publications describing them, quality research is lacking, and patient outcome data are limited. The literature has high representation bias, where existing evidence disproportionately describes a small subset of institutions. Most SRCs have not published empiric data and most research is nongeneralizable to other SRCs, limiting the overall understanding of these clinics. These findings underscore clear priorities for developing the knowledge base for this rapidly growing component of the U.S. safety net health care system.

美国学生诊所研究的质量、数量、范围和趋势:现有文献的范围综述。
目的:本研究描述了美国学生诊所(src)文献的质量、数量、范围和趋势。方法:根据PRISMA指南,作者检索PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science和SCOPUS,检索截至2024年3月1日的所有年份美国涉及MD和DO学生的src出版物,以及Journal of Student Run Clinics和Free Clinic Research Collective的所有出版物。作者使用归纳分析来确定文献主题,并对研究文章进行标准化的方法学质量评估。结果:在7584个结果中,检索确定了503篇出版物,包括278篇主要研究(55%),14篇综述(3%)和211篇非研究(42%)(例如观点文章)。大多数研究是横断面研究(292项研究中有160项[55%]),方法学质量较低(282项研究中有195项[69%];10项研究被排除在质量评估之外)。志愿者结果是研究最多的(n = 97),其中志愿者满意度(n = 62)是研究最多的主题。患者临床(n = 42)和行为(n = 21)结果的研究较少。在278篇主要研究文章中,237篇(85%)涉及个别诊所,91篇(33%)由10家机构发表。代表性不足的课题包括伦理、政策、社会工作、社区参与研究和国家研究。结论:尽管src和描述它们的出版物快速增长,但缺乏高质量的研究,患者结局数据有限。文献具有很高的代表性偏差,其中现有证据不成比例地描述了一小部分机构。大多数src没有发表经验数据,大多数研究不能推广到其他src,限制了对这些诊所的整体理解。这些发现强调了明确的优先事项,即为美国安全网卫生保健系统中这一快速增长的组成部分开发知识库。
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
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信