Search

Studies of cost and value can inform educational decision making, yet our understanding of the barriers to such research is incomplete. To address this gap, our aim was to explore the attitudes of global thought leaders in HPE towards cost and value research. This was a qualitative virtual interview study underpinned by social constructionism. In telephone or videoconference interviews in 2018-2019, we asked global healthcare professional thought leaders their views regarding HPE cost and value research, outstanding research questions in this area and why addressing these questions was important. Analysis was inductive and thematic, and incorporated review and comments from the original interviewees (member checking). We interviewed 11 thought leaders, nine of whom gave later feedback on our data interpretation (member checking). We identified four themes: Cost research is really important but potentially risky (quantifying and reporting costs provides evidence for decision-making but could lead to increased accountability and loss of autonomy); I don't have the knowledge and skills (lack of economic literacy); it's not what I went into education research to do (professional identity); and it's difficult to generate generalizable findings (the importance of context). This study contributes to a wider conversation in the literature about cost and value research by bringing in the views of global HPE thought leaders. Our findings provide insight to inform how best to engage and empower educators and researchers in the processes of asking and answering meaningful, acceptable and relevant cost and value questions in HPE.

Every choice we make in health professions education has a cost, whether it be financial or otherwise; by choosing one action (e.g., integrating more simulation, studying more for a summative examination) we lose the opportunity to take an alternative action (e.g., freeing up time for other teaching, leisure time). Economics significantly shapes the way we behave and think as educators and learners and so there is increasing interest in using economic ways of thinking and approaches to examine and understand how choices are made, the influence of constraints and boundaries in educational decision making, and how costs are felt. Thus, in this article, we provide a brief historical overview of modern economics, to illustrate how the core concepts of economics--scarcity (and desirability), rationality, and optimization--developed over time. We explain the important concept of bounded rationality, which explains how individual, meso-factors and contextual factors influence decision making. We then consider the opportunities that these concepts afford for health professions education and research. We conclude by proposing that embracing economic thinking opens up new questions and new ways of approaching old questions which can add knowledge about how choice is enacted in contemporary health professions education.

In the UK widening access (WA) activities and policies aim to increase the representation from lower socio-economic groups into Higher Education. Whilst linked to a political rhetoric of inclusive education such initiatives have however failed to significantly increase the number of such students entering medicine. This is compounded by a discourse that portrays WA applicants and students as lacking the essential skills or attributes to be successful in medical education. Much of the research in this area to date has been weak and it is critical to better understand how WA applicants and students negotiate medical admissions and education to inform change. To address this gap we amalgamated a larger dataset from three qualitative studies of student experiences of WA to medicine (48 participants in total). Inductively analysing the findings using social capital as a theoretical lens we created and clustered codes into categories, informed by the concepts of "weak ties" and "bridging and linking capital", terms used by previous workers in this field, to better understand student journeys in medical education. Successful applicants from lower socio-economic groups recognise and mobilise weak ties to create linking capital. However once in medical school these students seem less aware of the need for, or how to create, capital effectively. We argue WA activities should support increasing the social capital of under-represented applicants and students, and future selection policy needs to take into account the varying social capital of students, so as to not overtly disadvantage some social groups.

Traditional methods of assessing personality traits in medical school selection have been heavily criticised. To address this at the point of selection, "non-cognitive" tests were included in the UK Clinical Aptitude Test, the most widely-used aptitude test in UK medical education (UKCAT: http://www.ukcat.ac.uk/). We examined the predictive validity of these non-cognitive traits with performance during and on exit from medical school. We sampled all students graduating in 2013 from the 30 UKCAT consortium medical schools. Analysis included: candidate demographics, UKCAT non-cognitive scores, medical school performance data--the Educational Performance Measure (EPM) and national exit situational judgement test (SJT) outcomes. We examined the relationships between these variables and SJT and EPM scores. Multilevel modelling was used to assess the relationships adjusting for confounders. The 3343 students who had taken the UKCAT non-cognitive tests and had both EPM and SJT data were entered into the analysis. There were four types of non-cognitive test: (1) libertarian-communitarian, (2) NACE--narcissism, aloofness, confidence and empathy, (3) MEARS--self-esteem, optimism, control, self-discipline, emotional-nondefensiveness (END) and faking, (4) an abridged version of 1 and 2 combined. Multilevel regression showed that, after correcting for demographic factors, END predicted SJT and EPM decile. Aloofness and empathy in NACE were predictive of SJT score. This is the first large-scale study examining the relationship between performance on non-cognitive selection tests and medical school exit assessments. The predictive validity of these tests was limited, and the relationships revealed do not fit neatly with theoretical expectations. This study does not support their use in selection.

Selection is the first assessment of medical education and training. Medical schools must select from a pool of academically successful applicants and ensure that the way in which they choose future clinicians is robust, defensible, fair to all who apply and cost-effective. However, there is no comprehensive and evidence-informed guide to help those tasked with setting up or rejuvenating their local selection process. To address this gap, our guide draws on the latest research, international case studies and consideration of common dilemmas to provide practical guidance for designing, implementing and evaluating an effective medical school selection system. We draw on a model from the field of instructional design to frame the many different activities involved in doing so: the ADDIE model. ADDIE provides a systematic framework of Analysis (of the outcomes to be achieved by the selection process, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving these), Design (what tools and content are needed so the goals of selection are achieved), Development (what materials and resources are needed and available), Implementation (plan [including piloting], do study and adjust) and Evaluation (quality assurance is embedded throughout but the last step involves extensive evaluation of the entire process and its outcomes). Robust, defensible and fair selection into medical school is essential. This guide systematically covers the processes required to achieve this, from needs analysis through design, development and implementation, to evaluation of the success of a selection process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]