{"title":"医学教育中的未来研究方法:BEME系统综述:BEME指南第52号。","authors":"J. Ramazani, T. Enayati","doi":"10.22038/FMEJ.2019.41026.1273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Over 50 years after the introduction of futures studies, the number of such studies in medical education is very limited. Familiarization with futures studies can have a positive effect on the application of these studies in medical education. The study was performed to Review and synthesize the best existing evidence in the literature that addresses the question, \"What are the most effective futures studies approaches in medical education\"? Methods: Based on Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guidelines, a review of PubMed, Scopus, Educational Resource Information Center, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (1976–2019), was conducted with the search strategy of (\"futures studies\" OR \"future studies\"), \"Medical education\", and \"approach OR method\". Hand searching and grey literature search were also used. According to inclusion criteria, all abstracts and papers were screened by pairs of reviewers. Using the presage process product (3P) model, analyzing and synthesizing the included studies was performed. Results: From screening 1533 abstracts, 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. A wide range of futures studies methods have been introduced for medical education, but the most commonly used methods were different types of scenarios. Conclusion: Using different forms of scenario was the most used method in future studies in medical education. The variety and breadth of future studies in medical education call for a more and more specific and limited number of methods to be undertaken in this field.","PeriodicalId":34243,"journal":{"name":"Future of Medical Education Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":"19-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Futures Studies Approaches in Medical Education: A BEME Systematic Review: BEME Guide No. 52.\",\"authors\":\"J. Ramazani, T. Enayati\",\"doi\":\"10.22038/FMEJ.2019.41026.1273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Over 50 years after the introduction of futures studies, the number of such studies in medical education is very limited. Familiarization with futures studies can have a positive effect on the application of these studies in medical education. The study was performed to Review and synthesize the best existing evidence in the literature that addresses the question, \\\"What are the most effective futures studies approaches in medical education\\\"? Methods: Based on Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guidelines, a review of PubMed, Scopus, Educational Resource Information Center, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (1976–2019), was conducted with the search strategy of (\\\"futures studies\\\" OR \\\"future studies\\\"), \\\"Medical education\\\", and \\\"approach OR method\\\". Hand searching and grey literature search were also used. According to inclusion criteria, all abstracts and papers were screened by pairs of reviewers. Using the presage process product (3P) model, analyzing and synthesizing the included studies was performed. Results: From screening 1533 abstracts, 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. A wide range of futures studies methods have been introduced for medical education, but the most commonly used methods were different types of scenarios. Conclusion: Using different forms of scenario was the most used method in future studies in medical education. The variety and breadth of future studies in medical education call for a more and more specific and limited number of methods to be undertaken in this field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future of Medical Education Journal\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"19-22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future of Medical Education Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22038/FMEJ.2019.41026.1273\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future of Medical Education Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/FMEJ.2019.41026.1273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在引入未来研究50多年后,医学教育中此类研究的数量非常有限。熟悉未来研究可以对这些研究在医学教育中的应用产生积极影响。进行这项研究是为了审查和综合文献中解决“医学教育中最有效的未来研究方法是什么”问题的最佳现有证据?方法:根据最佳证据医学教育(BEME)指南,对PubMed、Scopus、教育资源信息中心、Web of Science和Google Scholar(1976–2019)进行综述,采用(“未来研究”或“未来研究)、“医学教育”和“方法或方法”的搜索策略。还使用了手搜索和灰色文献搜索。根据入选标准,所有摘要和论文都由成对的评审员进行筛选。使用预售过程产品(3P)模型,对所包含的研究进行分析和综合。结果:从1533篇摘要中筛选出7篇符合入选标准。医学教育已经引入了广泛的未来研究方法,但最常用的方法是不同类型的场景。结论:在未来的医学教育研究中,使用不同形式的情景是最常用的方法。未来医学教育研究的多样性和广度要求在这一领域采取越来越具体和有限的方法。
Futures Studies Approaches in Medical Education: A BEME Systematic Review: BEME Guide No. 52.
Background: Over 50 years after the introduction of futures studies, the number of such studies in medical education is very limited. Familiarization with futures studies can have a positive effect on the application of these studies in medical education. The study was performed to Review and synthesize the best existing evidence in the literature that addresses the question, "What are the most effective futures studies approaches in medical education"? Methods: Based on Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guidelines, a review of PubMed, Scopus, Educational Resource Information Center, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (1976–2019), was conducted with the search strategy of ("futures studies" OR "future studies"), "Medical education", and "approach OR method". Hand searching and grey literature search were also used. According to inclusion criteria, all abstracts and papers were screened by pairs of reviewers. Using the presage process product (3P) model, analyzing and synthesizing the included studies was performed. Results: From screening 1533 abstracts, 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. A wide range of futures studies methods have been introduced for medical education, but the most commonly used methods were different types of scenarios. Conclusion: Using different forms of scenario was the most used method in future studies in medical education. The variety and breadth of future studies in medical education call for a more and more specific and limited number of methods to be undertaken in this field.