Use of evidence in health professions education: Attitudes, practices, barriers and supports

Abstract

Introduction: Health professions educators are increasingly called upon to apply an evidence-informed approach to teaching and assessment practices. There is scant empirical research exploring educators’ attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers and supports to using research evidence in educational practice.

Methods: We conducted a survey of AMEE members to explore three domains related to evidence-informed health professions education: (1) attitudes; (2) practices; and (3) supports and barriers. Analyses involved descriptive statistics to characterize participants' responses per domain. Chi-Square statistics were carried out to examine differences among the demographic variables on a subset of items in each of the three survey sections.

Results: Three hundred ninety-six (∼10%) participants representing health professions educators (HPEs) and non HPEs (e.g. PhDs) and different roles (e.g. teacher, administrator) completed the survey. Attitudes toward evidence-informed HPE were generally favorable. Several barriers preclude participants from engaging in evidence-informed approaches to health professions education (HPE).

Discussion: This study provides preliminary evidence on the attitudes toward and perceived barriers and supports of research use in HPE from different groups of HP educators, clinicians, and administrators. The findings for each of the three domains require additional exploration using qualitative methodologies.

Conclusion: Targeted interventions designed to increase the uptake of research in HPE should consider different stakeholder groups’ perceptions regarding these approaches, current vs. best practices, and factors that may impede evidence-informed approaches.

View correction statement:

Correction

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the funding from the Association for Medical Education of Europe to support this research and Ms. Sara Zahabi for her assistance in the early stages of this research.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Glossary

Knowledge Translation: The most widely used definition of knowledge translation was published in 2000 by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): “Knowledge translation (KT) is defined as a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically-sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the health care system” (Government of Canada 2012).

Using the CIHR definition as a basis, the National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) published this definition of KT in 2005: “The collaborative and systematic review, assessment, identification, aggregation, and practical application of high-quality disability and rehabilitation research by key stakeholders (i.e., consumers, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers) for the purpose of improving the lives of individuals with disabilities” (National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research 2012).

In 2006, Graham et al. acknowledged the proliferation of related terms for the activity of knowledge translation, documenting 29 different terms used by 33 different health research funding agencies in their publications, including knowledge transfer, knowledge mobilization, knowledge exchange, implementation, and translational research (Graham et al. 2006).

Government of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2012. Knowledge Translation. About knowledge translation – CIHR. [Retrieved 2012 October 31] Cihr-irsc.gc.ca.

National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. 2012. NCDDR knowledge translation. [Retrieved 2012 October 31] Ncddr.org.

Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. 2006. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 26:13–24.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Aliki Thomas

Aliki Thomas, PhD, OT (c), erg., is an Associate Professor in the School of Physical and Occupational Therapy and research scientist at the Center for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Her research focuses on education for evidence-based practice and on knowledge translation for evidence-based education and clinical practice.

Larry D. Gruppen

Larry D. Gruppen, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School. He held the offices of President of the Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education and chair of the Association of American Medical College’s (AAMC) Central Group on Educational Affairs.

Cees van der Vleuten

Cees van der Vleuten, PhD, is a Professor of Education, Department of Educational Development and Research in the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Scientific Director of the School of Health Professions Education, the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands.

Gevorg Chilingaryan

Gevorg Chilingaryan, DMD, MPH, was a Biostatistician at the Feil and Oberfeld Research Center, Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital, site of Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal.

Fatima Amari

Fatima Amari, MSc, OT, is a Research Assistant at the School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University.

Yvonne Steinert

Yvonne Steinert, PhD, is a clinical psychologist, Professor of Family Medicine, Director of the Center for Medical Education at McGill University, and the Richard and Sylvia Cruess Chair in Medical Education, Member of the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Board and the founding Chair of the BEME International Collaborating Center, McGill University.