A Medical Education Research Library: key research topics and associated experts

ABSTRACT

When clinician-educators and medical education researchers use and discuss medical education research, they can advance innovation in medical education as well as improve its quality. To facilitate the use and discussions of medical education research, we created a prefatory visual representation of key medical education research topics and associated experts. We conducted one-on-one virtual interviews with medical education journal editorial board members to identify what they perceived as key medical education research topics as well as who they associated, as experts, with each of the identified topics. We used content analysis to create categories representing key topics and noted occurrences of named experts. Twenty-one editorial board members, representing nine of the top medical education journals, participated. From the data we created a figure entitled, Medical Education Research Library. The library includes 13 research topics, with assessment as the most prevalent. It also notes recognized experts, including van der Vleuten, ten Cate, and Norman. The key medical education research topics identified and included in the library align with what others have identified as trends in the literature. Selected topics, including workplace-based learning, equity, diversity, and inclusion, physician wellbeing and burnout, and social accountability, are emerging. Once transformed into an open educational resource, clinician-educators and medical education researchers can use and contribute to the functional library. Such continuous expansion will generate better awareness and recognition of diverse perspectives. The functional library will help to innovate and improve the quality of medical education through evidence-informed practices and scholarship.

KEYWORDS:

• Evidence-informed practices
• evidence-informed scholarship
• medical education
• medical education research
• research use

Introduction

Medical education research (MER) advances innovation in medical education and improves its quality. However, for novice clinician-educators, generating medical education scholarship can be daunting [1]. The ‘alien culture’ of MER, with its own concepts and processes [2], and time-constraints [3], may hinder clinician-educators from appropriately implementing evidence into their educational practices and scholarship [3,4].

To increase MER use, some have shed light on research areas of foci [5,6], demonstrated top citations [7,8], and spotlighted journal trends [9,10]. Such bibliometric studies provide glimmers into who is publishing MER and individual pieces of scholarship. However, they do not concisely present key MER topics and associated experts. They present findings in long word-based formats, which are unideal for clinician-educators’ needs [11]. Thus, we initiated the creation of a prefatory visual representation of current key MER topics and associated experts.

Methods

Medical education journal editors have unique insights into MER and are responsible for determining the value and significance of works submitted [12]. We contacted all editorial board members of the top 10 medical education journals, based on 2022 impact factors, via their public email addresses, provided an information letter, and invited them to participate in a one-on-one virtual interview. We asked them what they perceived as key MER topics and who they associated, as experts, with each. Interviewees provided prior informed verbal consent. Our University’s Office of Research Ethics and Integrity approved the study (#S-11-21-7569).

We conducted content analysis [13] to determine key MER topics and associated experts. We created initial categories based on the above-mentioned bibliometric studies. We individually read the transcripts and highlighted text representing topics, coded highlighted text using the predetermined categories, then created new categories for topics beyond the initial scheme. We resolved disagreements through discussion. We then reread the transcripts and searched for occurrences of named experts for each topic. We determined key topics to be those identified by at least two interviewees and included all experts identified.

Results

Of the 81 members invited, 21 participated, representing nine of the top medical education journals: Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, BMC Medical Education, Canadian Medical Education Journal, Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, Medical Teacher, Perspectives on Medical Education, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, and The Clinical Teacher. From the data we created Figure 1, Medical Education Research Library.

Figure 1. Medical Education Research Library.

The library illustrates key MER topics and associated experts. The shelves represent the identified topics; the right bracketed number represents the number of interviewees that identified the topic. The topics are placed most to least identified, from top to bottom and left to right. The labeled paper organisers represent the identified experts within each topic; the number below represents the number of interviewees that identified that individual as an expert.

Discussion

This Medical Education Research Library provides a prefatory visual representation of current key MER topics and associated experts. The topics align with trends identified in the literature, including topics of longstanding focus in MER. For example, previous research revealed the prevalence of topics related to learner characteristics, medical school selection, and assessment [6,7,14]. Authors identified topics related to physician competencies (skills, knowledge, attributes), curricula, and teaching as key [5–7]. Topics related to research methodology, program evaluation, and technology are gaining prominence [5]. This study highlights a growing interest in research related to workplace-based learning and an emerging interest in equity, diversity, and inclusion, physician wellbeing and burnout, and social accountability.

The library allows clinician-educators to see key MER topics and perceived experts when searching for evidence to support, improve, and innovate their practices and scholarship. Such knowledge and efficiency benefits manuscript publication and academic promotion [15]. The library encourages medical education researchers to reflect on where they might fit within the library and who they might engage as future collaborators, mentors, or reviewers. More so, it urges them to think about how they can grow the library and diversify the topics included [5,10,16–18]. It illustrates a limited number of experts, highlighting the need for collaborative efforts to bring recognition to others’ work. Concerningly, the identified experts are mostly males, from Western countries and high-ranking institutions. As such, the library presses that the community needs to address issues around who is considered legitimate in MER and better recognize and support diverse perspectives [10].

With this, we recognize that the library provides the perspective of one stakeholder group, that of journal editors; specifically, the perspectives of those who participated in this study. Our intention is to provide a prefatory visual representation for the medical education community to grow and diversify through research. We intend to spark conversations around what and who is perceived as key in MER as well as comments such as ‘Why isn’t topic X included?’ and ‘I am missing from topic X!’. With this, we will transform the Medical Education Research Library into a functional, open educational resource that serves to innovate and improve the quality of medical education through evidence-informed practices and scholarship.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dennis Newhook and Mary-Ann Harrison of the Clinical Research Unit, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, for their support and artistic creativity in helping us create the Medical Education Research Library.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.