Examining the readiness of Best Evidence in Medical Education Guides for integration into educational practice: A meta-synthesis

Abstract

To support evidence-informed education, health professions education (HPE) stakeholders encourage the creation and use of knowledge syntheses or reviews. However, it is unclear if these knowledge syntheses are ready for translation into educational practice. Without understanding the readiness, defined by three criteria, quality, accessibility and relevance, we risk translating weak evidence into practice and/or providing information to educators that is not usable, both of which have the potential to frustrate teachers and learners and impair teaching and learning practices.Methods: A librarian searched for knowledge syntheses, specifically Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Guides, using Web of Science. Two authors extracted data from all Guides, guided by the 25-item STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis (STORIES). Results: Forty-two Guides published in Medical Teacher between 1999 and 2017 were analyzed. No Guide met all STORIES criteria, but all included structured summaries and most described their literature search (n=39) and study inclusion/exclusion (n=40) procedures. Eleven Guides reported the presence of theory and/or educational principles, and eight consulted with external subject matter experts. Accessibility to each Guide’s full-text and supplemental materials was variable. Discussion: For a subset of HPE knowledge syntheses, BEME Guides, this meta-synthesis identifies factors that support readiness and indicates potential areas of improvement, such as consistent access to Guides and inclusion of external subject matter experts. This analysis is useful for understanding the current readiness of HPE knowledge syntheses and informing future reviews to evolve so they can catalyze translation of evidence into educational practice.

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: A bibliometric analysis

“…We restricted our search to 14 journals that have been previously identified as core medical education journals. 10,17 The journals included in our analysis were: On March 31, 2020 we queried Altmetric Explorer to obtain information on each article's Altmetric Attention Score, which is a web-based measure of an article's impact, with an emphasis on social media outlets as sources of data (e.g., whether the article was tweeted, saved to Facebook, covered by the news media, etc.). Next, on April 10, 2020 we searched WoS to obtain additional metadata (e.g., number of times cited, funding information).…”

“…opportunities (e.g., SDRME's annual funding opportunity) 8 , medical education graduate programs, 39 and related supporting initiatives such as BEME and the community's broader desire for synthesized evidence to keep current with research in the field and improve educational practice. 17 Additionally, when compared with other article types, knowledge syntheses are more highly cited, which makes them attractive to both authors and editors. For example, 80% of the top cited articles in Medical Education were review articles.…”

“…More recently, members of our author team conducted a meta-synthesis of BEME knowledge syntheses, attempting to identify the degree to which the reviews were ready for translation into practice and to summarize their features. 17 Although valuable, this metasynthesis examined a limited sample of knowledge syntheses (BEME reviews only) that underwent several intense review steps prior to publication; as such, the generalizability of this work is limited.…”