Medical education practice-based research networks: Facilitating collaborative research

Schwartz, Alan; Young, Robin Miller; Hicks, Patricia J.; Learn, For Appd

doi:10.3109/0142159x.2014.970991

Cited by 62 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are many important benefits of collaborative, multicenter research. Multicenter research allows analysis of questions that require larger sample sizes [ 3 ], while enabling comparison of effect between sites and providing insight related to generalizability of effect across institutions [ 4 ]. Multicenter research promotes capacity, networking, and mentorship by bringing together investigators who share and leverage resources, expertise, and ideas [ 4 – 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multicenter research allows analysis of questions that require larger sample sizes [ 3 ], while enabling comparison of effect between sites and providing insight related to generalizability of effect across institutions [ 4 ]. Multicenter research promotes capacity, networking, and mentorship by bringing together investigators who share and leverage resources, expertise, and ideas [ 4 – 7 ]. Research networks can support multicenter collaborations by providing infrastructure, site investigators and content experts, and opportunities for dissemination of best practices to and beyond network members [ 4 , 8 , 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simulation-based research has grown substantially over the past two decades; however, relatively few published simulation studies are multicenter in nature. Multicenter research confers many distinct advantages over single-center studies, including larger sample sizes for more generalizable findings, sharing resources amongst collaborative sites, and promoting networking. Well-executed multicenter studies are more likely to improve provider performance and/or have a positive impact on patient outcomes. In this manuscript, we offer a step-by-step guide to conducting multicenter, simulation-based research based upon our collective experience with the International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research and Education (INSPIRE). Like multicenter clinical research, simulation-based multicenter research can be divided into four distinct phases. Each phase has specific differences when applied to simulation research: (1) Planning phase, to define the research question, systematically review the literature, identify outcome measures, and conduct pilot studies to ensure feasibility and estimate power; (2) Project Development phase, when the primary investigator identifies collaborators, develops the protocol and research operations manual, prepares grant applications, obtains ethical approval and executes subsite contracts, registers the study in a clinical trial registry, forms a manuscript oversight committee, and conducts feasibility testing and data validation at each site; (3) Study Execution phase, involving recruitment and enrollment of subjects, clear communication and decision-making, quality assurance measures and data abstraction, validation, and analysis; and (4) Dissemination phase, where the research team shares results via conference presentations, publications, traditional media, social media, and implements strategies for translating results to practice. With this manuscript, we provide a guide to conducting quantitative multicenter research with a focus on simulation-specific issues.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41077-017-0039-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Faculty undertaking future educational research should identify potential resources in their institutions and effectively leverage national programs that support skills development and collaboration [ 30 , 31 ]. National organizations should continue to invest in infrastructure to support research networks and anticipate the financial needs of their ongoing maintenance and growth [ 32 ]. We did find an increase in the number of studies reporting funding over the ten-year time span of this project, perhaps reflecting the acknowledgement of prior calls for increased funding for health sciences education research funding [ 18 , 19 , 33 , 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research: a systematic review

Schiller

Dallaghan

Kind

et al. 2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects.Methods:Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.Results:One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master’s degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11).Conclusions:Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.

show abstract

“…Based at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), MedEdNet is an AHRQ designated educational research network that involves studies in undergraduate and graduate medical education ( 20 ). OHSU successfully obtained an IRB exemption for the MedEdNet repository, which houses data from many educational research studies.…”

Section: Examples Of Existing Data Repositories Using a Registry Irb mentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the institutional review board data repository approach to manage ethical considerations in evaluating and studying medical education

Thayer

Rathkey

Miller

et al. 2016

Medical Education Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IssueMedical educators and educational researchers continue to improve their processes for managing medical student and program evaluation data using sound ethical principles. This is becoming even more important as curricular innovations are occurring across undergraduate and graduate medical education. Dissemination of findings from this work is critical, and peer-reviewed journals often require an institutional review board (IRB) determination.ApproachIRB data repositories, originally designed for the longitudinal study of biological specimens, can be applied to medical education research. The benefits of such an approach include obtaining expedited review for multiple related studies within a single IRB application and allowing for more flexibility when conducting complex longitudinal studies involving large datasets from multiple data sources and/or institutions. In this paper, we inform educators and educational researchers on our analysis of the use of the IRB data repository approach to manage ethical considerations as part of best practices for amassing, pooling, and sharing data for educational research, evaluation, and improvement purposes.ImplicationsFostering multi-institutional studies while following sound ethical principles in the study of medical education is needed, and the IRB data repository approach has many benefits, especially for longitudinal assessment of complex multi-site data.

show abstract

Medical education practice-based research networks: Facilitating collaborative research

Cited by 62 publications

References 24 publications

Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network

Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network

Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research: a systematic review

Applying the institutional review board data repository approach to manage ethical considerations in evaluating and studying medical education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About