Martin G Tolsgaard, Leizl Joy Nayahangan, David A Cook, Gorm Roager Madsen, Ryan Brydges, Susan van Schalkwyk, Marco A de Carvalho Filho, Michelle You You, Jennifer Cleland
{"title":"全球研究旨在研究卫生专业教育的成本和价值：国际专家的德尔菲研究。","authors":"Martin G Tolsgaard, Leizl Joy Nayahangan, David A Cook, Gorm Roager Madsen, Ryan Brydges, Susan van Schalkwyk, Marco A de Carvalho Filho, Michelle You You, Jennifer Cleland","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2025.2501254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health professions educators constantly make difficult choices about the allocation of finite resources. However, there is limited sound research available to guide their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by establishing international consensus on research aims, considering diverse economic and cultural contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a three-round Delphi study, engaging an international panel of 73 experts in education research. Panelists were asked to identify (round 1), rank (round 2), and revise (round 3) research aims important for the study of cost and value in medical education. Round 3 results were discussed by an international steering group of nine medical education scientists actively involved in cost and value research, who finalized a list of 20 research aims. Steering group narratives were analyzed to identify additional conceptual insights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 597 research aims suggested in round 1, 20 research aims were identified after steering group discussion. These were clustered into three categories: (1) funding mechanisms for medical education (e.g. financial policies, cost-effectiveness, and equity impacts); (2) cost and outcomes, e.g. how costs in health professions education relate to concrete outcomes; and (3) economic evaluation of teaching, assessment, and training approaches; e.g. designing and applying formal economic evaluation methods. Steering group discussions noted the limited integration of economic theories into medical education research and the need for foundational studies beyond immediate, practical priorities. They further noted lack of consensus on definitions of cost and value, and appropriate methodologies; underutilization of accepted health economics approaches; and infrequent interdisciplinary collaborations. These collectively act as barriers to advancing the field.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The field of cost and value in health professions education remains theoretically and empirically underdeveloped. The research aims identified herein provide a strategic framework for addressing cost and value comprehensively.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global research aims for the study of cost and value in health professions education: A Delphi study of international experts.\",\"authors\":\"Martin G Tolsgaard, Leizl Joy Nayahangan, David A Cook, Gorm Roager Madsen, Ryan Brydges, Susan van Schalkwyk, Marco A de Carvalho Filho, Michelle You You, Jennifer Cleland\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0142159X.2025.2501254\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health professions educators constantly make difficult choices about the allocation of finite resources. However, there is limited sound research available to guide their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by establishing international consensus on research aims, considering diverse economic and cultural contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors conducted a three-round Delphi study, engaging an international panel of 73 experts in education research. Panelists were asked to identify (round 1), rank (round 2), and revise (round 3) research aims important for the study of cost and value in medical education. Round 3 results were discussed by an international steering group of nine medical education scientists actively involved in cost and value research, who finalized a list of 20 research aims. Steering group narratives were analyzed to identify additional conceptual insights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 597 research aims suggested in round 1, 20 research aims were identified after steering group discussion. These were clustered into three categories: (1) funding mechanisms for medical education (e.g. financial policies, cost-effectiveness, and equity impacts); (2) cost and outcomes, e.g. how costs in health professions education relate to concrete outcomes; and (3) economic evaluation of teaching, assessment, and training approaches; e.g. designing and applying formal economic evaluation methods. Steering group discussions noted the limited integration of economic theories into medical education research and the need for foundational studies beyond immediate, practical priorities. They further noted lack of consensus on definitions of cost and value, and appropriate methodologies; underutilization of accepted health economics approaches; and infrequent interdisciplinary collaborations. These collectively act as barriers to advancing the field.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The field of cost and value in health professions education remains theoretically and empirically underdeveloped. The research aims identified herein provide a strategic framework for addressing cost and value comprehensively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Teacher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2501254\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2501254","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}
Global research aims for the study of cost and value in health professions education: A Delphi study of international experts.
Background: Health professions educators constantly make difficult choices about the allocation of finite resources. However, there is limited sound research available to guide their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by establishing international consensus on research aims, considering diverse economic and cultural contexts.
Methods: The authors conducted a three-round Delphi study, engaging an international panel of 73 experts in education research. Panelists were asked to identify (round 1), rank (round 2), and revise (round 3) research aims important for the study of cost and value in medical education. Round 3 results were discussed by an international steering group of nine medical education scientists actively involved in cost and value research, who finalized a list of 20 research aims. Steering group narratives were analyzed to identify additional conceptual insights.
Results: From 597 research aims suggested in round 1, 20 research aims were identified after steering group discussion. These were clustered into three categories: (1) funding mechanisms for medical education (e.g. financial policies, cost-effectiveness, and equity impacts); (2) cost and outcomes, e.g. how costs in health professions education relate to concrete outcomes; and (3) economic evaluation of teaching, assessment, and training approaches; e.g. designing and applying formal economic evaluation methods. Steering group discussions noted the limited integration of economic theories into medical education research and the need for foundational studies beyond immediate, practical priorities. They further noted lack of consensus on definitions of cost and value, and appropriate methodologies; underutilization of accepted health economics approaches; and infrequent interdisciplinary collaborations. These collectively act as barriers to advancing the field.
Conclusion: The field of cost and value in health professions education remains theoretically and empirically underdeveloped. The research aims identified herein provide a strategic framework for addressing cost and value comprehensively.
期刊介绍：
Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
