Search

To determine the quality of published rheumatology-focused continuing professional development (CPD) for primary care clinicians (PCCs) for improving the care of patients with rheumatic diseases.The authors conducted a systematic review of CPD focused on rheumatology topics for PCCs. A librarian systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ERIC, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Sinico. Studies were limited to those conducted in North America after 1993. An extraction form that included the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Kirkpatrick levels of learning outcomes was created through an iterative process and applied to the included articles.In total, 725 articles were retrieved, of which 9 were included. Results showed that CPD was directed more at noninflammatory arthritis than inflammatory arthritis. Autoimmune diseases were underrepresented; 4 studies discussed rheumatoid arthritis, and 1 study examined rheumatologic topics broadly. Newer research tended to include multimodal approaches that combined didactic and active learning strategies, showing an evolution toward more active learning. Although online learning is increasingly popular, interventions were predominantly face-to-face, with only a single example of e-learning. Studies were predominantly of moderate quality.Published studies of rheumatology-focused CPD are moving toward more interactive teaching modalities and are typically conducted in person, although virtual options for rheumatology-focused CPD should be explored to improve access to CPD. Autoimmune disease is an uncommon topic in CPD and represents an area for future expansion. Efficacy was difficult to assess given that most of the studies assessed for learner satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, or behavior change, whereas only 1 study focused on patient outcomes.

Introduction While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. Method We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). Results Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated. Discussion This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

Objectives Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised., Over the last 20 years, the number of #MedEd reviews has grown >2600% (4200% for scoping reviews). To explore this growth, Maggio et al. conducted a scoping review of 101 scoping reviews across 14 journals.

© 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Objectives The objective was to critically appraise and highlight methodologically superior medical education research articles published in 2013 whose outcomes are pertinent to teaching and education in emergency medicine (EM).Methods A search of the English-language literature in 2013 querying Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsychINFO, PubMed, and Scopus identified 251 EM-related studies using hypothesis-testing or observational investigations of educational interventions. Two reviewers independently screened all of the publications and removed articles using established exclusion criteria. Six reviewers then independently scored the remaining 43 publications using either a qualitative a or quantitative scoring system, based on the research methodology of each article. Each scoring system consisted of nine criteria. Selected criteria were based on accepted educational review literature and chosen a priori. Both scoring systems used parallel scoring metrics and have been used previously within this annual review.Results Forty-three medical education research papers (37 quantitative and six qualitative studies) met the a priori criteria for inclusion and were reviewed. Six quantitative and one qualitative study were scored and ranked most highly by the reviewers as exemplary and are summarized in this article.Conclusions This annual critical appraisal article aims to promote superior research in EM-related education, by reviewing and highlighting seven of 43 major education research studies, meeting a priori criteria, and published in 2013. Common methodologic pitfalls in the 2013 papers are noted, and current trends in medical education research in EM are discussed. Resumen Objetivos Evaluar críticamente y destacar los artículos de investigaciõn en formaciõn médica metodolõgicamente superiores publicados en 2013 cuyos resultados son pertinentes para la formaciõn y educaciõn en Medicina de Urgencias y Emergencias (MUE). Metodología Una búsqueda de la literatura en lengua inglesa en 2013 consultando a Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsychINFO, PubMed, y Scopus identificõ 251 estudios relacionados con MUE que usaron o bien una prueba de hipõtesis o bien eran investigaciones observacionales de intervenciones formativas. Dos revisores independientemente cribaron todas las publicaciones y eliminaron artículos mediante los criterios de exclusiõn establecidos. Posteriormente seis revisores puntuaron de forma independiente las 43 publicaciones restantes usando bien un sistema de puntuaciõn cualitativo o cuantitativo, basado en la metodología de investigaciõn de cada artículo. Cada sistema de puntuaciõn consistiõ en nueve criterios. Los criterios de selecciõn se basaron en la literatura de revisiõn formativa aceptada y elegida a priori. Ambos sistemas de puntuaciõn usan una métrica de puntuaciõn paralela y se han utilizado previamente en esta revisiõn anual. Resultados Cuarenta y tres artículos de investigaciõn en formaciõn médica (37 estudios cuantitativos y 6 cualitativos) cumplieron los criterios de inclusiõn establecidos a priori y fueron revisados. Seis estudios cuantitativos y uno cualitativo se puntuaron y clasificaron en el nivel más alto por los revisores como ejemplares, y se resumen en este artículo. Conclusiones Este artículo de evaluaciõn crítica anual tiene el objetivo de promocionar la mejor investigaciõn acerca de la formaciõn en MUE, revisando y destacando 7 de 43 mayores estudios publicados en 2013 que cumplen los criterios establecidos a priori. Se destacan los fallos metodolõgicos frecuentes en los artículos de 2013 y se discuten las tendencias actuales en la investigaciõn en formaciõn en MUE.