Setting priorities for health education research: A mixed methods study

Abstract

Introduction:Identifying priority research topics that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders should maximise research investment.Aim: To identify priorities for health education research.Methods: A three-stage sequential mixed methods study was conducted. Priorities for health education research were identified through a qualitative survey with 104 students, patients, academics and clinicians across five health sciences and 12 professions (stage 1). These findings were analysed using framework analysis and transposed into a quantitative survey whereby 780 stakeholders rated and ranked the identified priorities. Descriptive statistics identified priorities, exploratory factor analysis grouped priorities and differences between stakeholders were determined using Mann-Whitney U tests (stage 2). Six individual or group interviews with 16 participants (stage 3) further explicated the results from previous stages.Results: Of 30 priorities identified, the top were: how best to ensure students develop the required skills for work; how to promote resiliency and well-being in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares students for work. For the majority of priorities, no significant differences were found between different stakeholder groups.Conclusions: These findings will be used to inform health educational research strategy both locally and nationally. Further research should explore if setting priorities can be translated effectively into education research policy and practice. Practice points• Engaging in systematic and consultative processes with multiple stakeholders to identify health education research priorities is essential to maximise the efficiency and impact of health education research.• The highest-priority research areas identified were: ensuring that students develop the required skills for work/practice; how to promote resiliency and wellbeing in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares for work/practice.• Research priority factors identified were: (i) Culture of learning together in the workplace; (ii) Preparation for work; (iii) Meeting future Australian healthcare needs;(iv) Pedagogical effectiveness; (v) Workforce issues; and (vi) Curriculum integration.• These research areas were prioritised as they were perceived to improve student learning, were seen as a current educational problem, supported the development of evidence-based education, and improved the quality of care and patient safety and preparedness for work.• The need still remains to determine if priority setting exercises can be translated effectively into education research policy (e.g. strategy) and practice (e.g. focused education research effort, enhanced education research quality).

Acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic patient reported outcome measure from the perspective of healthcare staff: a qualitative study

“…Data were charted to identify patterns in codes and form inductive themes. These themes and codes were then interpreted in the context of existing literature on the construct of acceptability, by three authors (DAS, EL, BOB) deductively mapping them to Sekhon et al’s seven component constructs of acceptability for healthcare interventions (Table 2 ) [ 33 , 34 ]. Authors initially mapped independently, then met to discuss and finalise the mapping process.…”

Research and scholarly methods: The scholarship of teaching and learning

“…If the institution is concerned about burnout, resiliency, and wellness, it may suggest overlapping interest in what happens in classrooms, clinics, and offices. Research questions that are aligned with institutional priorities may result in wider interest and more support from the institution 26 …”

Preceptor Perceptions of Pharmacy Student Performance Before and After a Curriculum Transformation

“…To comprehensively evaluate a curriculum, educators should use data from a range of sources including assessment performance, graduate outcomes and workplace performance, and student perceptions. 14,[17][18][19] This study represents one part of a larger curriculum evaluation utilizing multiple sources of evidence. Previously, researchers have evaluated health professions curricula in a variety of ways, mainly by comparing student perceptions of learning 20,21 and preparedness for practice, [22][23][24][25] and by interviewing graduates about the effectiveness of their program.…”