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":"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","authors":"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","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":"{\"title\":\"Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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}","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}
Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders
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.
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.