The relevance and role of homestays in medical education: a scoping study

Figures & data

Table 1. Quality assessment.

Study type	Methodological quality criteria
All study designs	Are there clear research questions/objectives?
	Do the data collected allow research questions to be appropriately addressed?
Qualitative studies	Are the sources of data relevant to address the research question?
	Is the process for analyzing data relevant to address the research question?
	Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g. the setting in which the data were collected?
	Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the researcher’s influence, e.g. through their interactions with participants?
Quantitative studies	Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research questions?
	Is the sample representative of the population under the study?
	Are measurements appropriate (clear origin or validity known or standard instrument)?
	Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or more)?
Mixed methods	Is the mixed methods design relevant to address the qualitative and quantitative research questions?
	Is the integration of qualitative and quantitative data relevant to address the research questions?
	Is appropriate consideration given to the limitations associated with this integration, e.g. the divergence of quantitative and qualitative data in a triangulation design?

Table 2. Charting of included articles.

1	Date of publication
2	Location of study
3	Study population – must be students or homestay participants (i.e. hosts)
4	Study methods – what tools were used to collect data or assess educational outcomes
5	Study design – qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods
6	Length of the homestay experience being evaluated
7	Demographics of the students and hosts (i.e. are the students living in a foreign country)
8	Outcomes of the homestay experience
9	Recommendations from the researchers
10	Relevance to the educational value of homestays

Table 3. Comparison of language proficiency results.

	Comparative	Speaking	Reading	Writing	Listening
Byun and Kim 2013 [20]	Individual post-test compared topre test	Minor increase	Insignificant increase	Insignificant decrease	Insignificant increase
Rivers 1998 [17]	Change from pr- to post-test compared todorm-stay students	Significant decrease	Significant increase	n/a	Insignificant result
DiSilvio et al. 2014 [15]	Individual post-test compared topre-test	Significant increase	n/a	n/a	n/a
Shiri 2015 [21]	Change from pre- to post-test compared to results of otherArabic learning students	Significant increase	n/a	n/a	n/a

Byun JS, Kim J. Homestay: what factors contribute to second language learning? 영어영문학. 2013;26(1):267–291. English.

 Google Scholar

Rivers W. Is being there enough? The effects of homestay placements on language gain during study abroad. Foreign Lang Ann. 1998;31(4):492–500. DOI:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1998.tb00594.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Di Silvio F, Donovan A, Malone M. The effect of study abroad homestay placements: participant perspectives and oral proficiency gains. Foreign Lang Ann. 2014;47(1):168–188. DOI:10.1111/flan.12064

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shiri S. The homestay in intensive language study abroad: social networks, language socialization, and developing intercultural competence. Foreign Lang Ann. 2015;48(1):5–25. DOI:10.1111/flan.12127

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar