Cargando…
Intervention Descriptions in Medical Education: What Can Be Improved? A Systematic Review and Checklist
PURPOSE: Many medical education studies focus on the effectiveness of educational interventions. However, these studies often lack clear, thorough descriptions of interventions that would make the interventions replicable. This systematic review aimed to identify gaps and limitations in the descript...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Published for the Association of American Medical Colleges by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6365274/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30157087 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002428 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: Many medical education studies focus on the effectiveness of educational interventions. However, these studies often lack clear, thorough descriptions of interventions that would make the interventions replicable. This systematic review aimed to identify gaps and limitations in the descriptions of educational interventions, using a comprehensive checklist. METHOD: Based on the literature, the authors developed a checklist of 17 criteria for thorough descriptions of educational interventions in medical education. They searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and ERIC databases for eligible English-language studies published January 2014–March 2016 that evaluated the effects of educational interventions during classroom teaching in postgraduate medical education. Subsequently, they used this checklist to systematically review the included studies. Descriptions were scored 0 (no information), 1 (unclear/partial information), or 2 (detailed description) for each of the 16 scorable criteria (possible range 0–32). RESULTS: Among the 105 included studies, the criteria most frequently reported in detail were learning needs (78.1%), content/subject (77.1%), and educational strategies (79.0%). The criteria least frequently reported in detail were incentives (9.5%), environment (5.7%), and planned and unplanned changes (12.4%). No article described all criteria. The mean score was 15.9 (SD 4.1), with a range from 8 (5 studies) to 25 (1 study). The majority (76.2%) of articles scored 11–20. CONCLUSIONS: Descriptions were frequently missing key information and lacked uniformity. The results suggest a need for a common standard. The authors encourage others to validate, complement, and use their checklist, which could lead to more complete, comparable, and replicable descriptions of educational interventions. |
---|