Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders

IF 1.2 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Clinical Teacher Pub Date : 2025-06-30 DOI:10.1111/tct.70144
Bryan Burford, Peter Yeates, Anna Harvey Bluemel, Sophie Park, John Sandars, Cecily Henry, Clare Corness-Parr, Richard Conn, Tom Gale, Tim O'Brien, Rikki Goddard-Fuller, Gill Vance, Janice Ellis
{"title":"Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders","authors":"Bryan Burford,&nbsp;Peter Yeates,&nbsp;Anna Harvey Bluemel,&nbsp;Sophie Park,&nbsp;John Sandars,&nbsp;Cecily Henry,&nbsp;Clare Corness-Parr,&nbsp;Richard Conn,&nbsp;Tom Gale,&nbsp;Tim O'Brien,&nbsp;Rikki Goddard-Fuller,&nbsp;Gill Vance,&nbsp;Janice Ellis","doi":"10.1111/tct.70144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>High quality clinical education research is required to ensure optimal education and training of healthcare professionals. Such research should address stakeholder needs and have a clear route to achieving benefit. We conducted the first UK-wide priority setting exercise for clinical education research to identify research priorities and how they are determined.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We used a two-stage process, derived from similar studies, to identify the research priorities of stakeholders including funders, regulators, educators and public representatives. Stage one consisted of two rounds of online surveys, gathering free-text suggestions of priorities and rating the resulting statements. A public engagement author advised on wording. Stage two used a stakeholder workshop to discuss principles and processes for operationalising priorities and maximising impact.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Round 1 survey respondents (<i>n</i> = 256) provided 1819 suggestions, from which content analysis synthesised 46 statements describing disparate research priorities. Distributions of ratings in Round 2 (<i>n</i> = 199) indicated that all were perceived as important by most respondents, although professionals and members of the public differed in their rating of some items. Workshop participants (<i>n</i> = 70) considered priorities to be dynamic and contextually dependent and linked to expected impact.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>The study identifies broad priorities for clinical education research, but recognises that simple prioritisation is insufficient, and develops understanding of how priorities arise, including differences between stakeholder groups, and changes over time. Recognising an integrated ‘system of impact’ may maximise opportunities for stakeholders—researchers, policy actors, knowledge users and funders—to effectively communicate and optimise research impact in the short and longer term.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47324,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Teacher","volume":"22 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/tct.70144","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://asmepublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tct.70144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

High quality clinical education research is required to ensure optimal education and training of healthcare professionals. Such research should address stakeholder needs and have a clear route to achieving benefit. We conducted the first UK-wide priority setting exercise for clinical education research to identify research priorities and how they are determined.

Methods

We used a two-stage process, derived from similar studies, to identify the research priorities of stakeholders including funders, regulators, educators and public representatives. Stage one consisted of two rounds of online surveys, gathering free-text suggestions of priorities and rating the resulting statements. A public engagement author advised on wording. Stage two used a stakeholder workshop to discuss principles and processes for operationalising priorities and maximising impact.

Results

Round 1 survey respondents (n = 256) provided 1819 suggestions, from which content analysis synthesised 46 statements describing disparate research priorities. Distributions of ratings in Round 2 (n = 199) indicated that all were perceived as important by most respondents, although professionals and members of the public differed in their rating of some items. Workshop participants (n = 70) considered priorities to be dynamic and contextually dependent and linked to expected impact.

Discussion

The study identifies broad priorities for clinical education research, but recognises that simple prioritisation is insufficient, and develops understanding of how priorities arise, including differences between stakeholder groups, and changes over time. Recognising an integrated ‘system of impact’ may maximise opportunities for stakeholders—researchers, policy actors, knowledge users and funders—to effectively communicate and optimise research impact in the short and longer term.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

建立临床教育研究的优先事项:探索英国专业和公众利益相关者的观点
高质量的临床教育研究是医疗保健专业人员教育和培训的保障。此类研究应满足利益相关者的需求,并有实现利益的明确途径。我们进行了第一次全英国范围的临床教育研究优先级设置练习,以确定研究优先级以及如何确定它们。方法:我们采用了源自类似研究的两阶段流程,以确定包括资助者、监管机构、教育工作者和公众代表在内的利益相关者的研究重点。第一阶段包括两轮在线调查,收集关于优先事项的自由文本建议,并对结果陈述进行评级。一位公众参与作家就措辞提出建议。第二阶段利用利益相关者研讨会讨论实施优先事项和最大化影响的原则和流程。第一轮调查的受访者(n = 256)提供了1819条建议,内容分析从中综合了46条描述不同研究重点的陈述。第二轮(n = 199)的评分分布表明,尽管专业人士和公众对某些项目的评分不同,但大多数受访者都认为这些项目很重要。讲习班参与者(n = 70)认为优先事项是动态的,依赖于环境,并与预期影响相关联。该研究确定了临床教育研究的广泛优先事项,但认识到简单的优先事项是不够的,并发展了对优先事项如何产生的理解,包括利益相关者群体之间的差异以及随时间的变化。认识到一个综合的“影响系统”可能会使利益相关者——研究人员、政策参与者、知识使用者和资助者——在短期和长期内有效地沟通和优化研究影响的机会最大化。
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
Clinical Teacher
Clinical Teacher MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
113
期刊介绍: The Clinical Teacher has been designed with the active, practising clinician in mind. It aims to provide a digest of current research, practice and thinking in medical education presented in a readable, stimulating and practical style. The journal includes sections for reviews of the literature relating to clinical teaching bringing authoritative views on the latest thinking about modern teaching. There are also sections on specific teaching approaches, a digest of the latest research published in Medical Education and other teaching journals, reports of initiatives and advances in thinking and practical teaching from around the world, and expert community and discussion on challenging and controversial issues in today"s clinical education.
×
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