Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: High quality clinical education research is required to ensure optimal education and training of healthcare professionals. Such research should address stakeholder needs and have a clear route to achieving benefit. We conducted the first UK-wide priority setting exercise for clinical education research to identify research priorities and how they are determined. METHODS: We used a two-stage process, derived from similar studies, to identify the research priorities of stakeholders including funders, regulators, educators and public representatives. Stage one consisted of two rounds of online surveys, gathering free-text suggestions of priorities and rating the resulting statements. A public engagement author advised on wording. Stage two used a stakeholder workshop to discuss principles and processes for operationalising priorities and maximising impact. RESULTS: Round 1 survey respondents (n = 256) provided 1819 suggestions, from which content analysis synthesised 46 statements describing disparate research priorities. Distributions of ratings in Round 2 (n = 199) indicated that all were perceived as important by most respondents, although professionals and members of the public differed in their rating of some items. Workshop participants (n = 70) considered priorities to be dynamic and contextually dependent and linked to expected impact. DISCUSSION: The study identifies broad priorities for clinical education research, but recognises that simple prioritisation is insufficient, and develops understanding of how priorities arise, including differences between stakeholder groups, and changes over time. Recognising an integrated 'system of impact' may maximise opportunities for stakeholders-researchers, policy actors, knowledge users and funders-to effectively communicate and optimise research impact in the short and longer term.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.