Differing viewpoints around healthcare professions' education research priorities: A Q-methodology approach.

Recently, due to scarce resources and the need to provide an evidence-base for healthcare professions' education (HPE), HPE research centres internationally have turned to identifying priorities for their research efforts. Engaging a range of stakeholders in research priority setting exercises has been posited as one way to address the issues around reducing researcher bias and increasing social accountability. However, assigning individuals to single a priori stakeholder groups is complex, with previous research overlooking cross-category membership and agreement between individuals across groups. Further, analyses have pitched stakeholder groups against one another in an attempt to understand who prioritises what, and often fails to grasp rationales underlying priorities. A deeper understanding of who prioritises what research areas and why is required to consider applicability of results across contexts and deepen social accountability and transferability. A web-based Q-methodological approach with n=91 participants (who) from ten pre-classified stakeholder groups was employed with post-sort interviews (why). Sixty-seven Q-set items (Chinese/English languages) were developed from previous research (what). Participants were mainly from Taiwan, although international researchers were included. Q-sorting was undertaken in groups or individually, followed by post-sort interviews. Eighty-six participants' Q-sorts were included in the final analysis. Intercorrelations among Q-sorts were factor-analysed (Centroid method) and rotated analytically (Varimax method). Interviews were thematically analysed. Six Viewpoints with eigenvalues exceeding 1 were identified (range = 3.55-10.34; 42% total variance; 35/67 topics), mapping high/low priorities for research foci: Workplace teaching and learning; Patient dignity and healthcare safety; Professionalism and healthcare professionals' development; Medical ethics and moral development; Healthcare professionals' retention and success; Preparing for clinical practice. Eighteen rationales for prioritisation were identified: impact, organisational culture and deficit of educators/practitioners were most highly cited. Each Viewpoint, held by multiple stakeholders, comprised a unique set of topic-groupings, target study participants, beneficiaries and rationales. The two most prolific Viewpoints represent how different stakeholder groups highlight key complementary perspectives of healthcare professions' education in the workplace (efficacy of teaching/learning practices, application of knowledge/values). By illuminating the detail around each Viewpoint, and presenting an holistic description of the who-what-why in research priority setting, others wishing to undertake such an exercise can more easily identify how stakeholder Viewpoints and their epistemic beliefs can help shape healthcare professions' research agendas more generally.

A scoping review examining funding trends in health care professions education research from Taiwan (2006-2017).

BACKGROUND: Traditionally health care professions education research (HCPER) is poorly funded, despite it being key to success. PURPOSE: This unique study maps HCPER evolution within a single country during a period when significant national governmental HCPER funding is introduced. METHODS: A scoping review method examined Taiwan's HCPER landscape across 12-years. Literature searches across four databases (OVID Medline; Scopus; Web of Science; the Airiti Library), a manual scan of HCPE journals and hand searches. Endnote and ATLAS.ti managed the data. Demographic and content codes were developed. PRISMA guidelines are used. DISCUSSION: One thousand four hundred and ten articles across 310 journals, with a steady rise in funded studies. Science/Social Science Citation Index and English language publications increased. Nursing Students/Nurses and Medical Students/Physicians are the most common populations. Significant associations with funding was found for indexed and English language publications. National funding influenced quality and local funding positively. CONCLUSION: Caution around local vs. global needs is highlighted and national funding policies for HCPER are advocated.

Understanding how to enhance efficacy and effectiveness of feedback via e-portfolio: a realist synthesis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The validity of feedback as one of the defining components for electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) to be effective and efficacious has yet to be demonstrated. While the literature has shown individual beneficial features of e-portfolios and feedback per se, evidence of feedback as mediated through technology directly resulting in improved educational practice is scarce. The explanation of how feedback via e-portfolio improves educational practice is particularly vague. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this research is to unpack how and why feedback via e-portfolio is likely to flourish or wither in its path. Given the complexity of intervention, we will apply a theory-driven approach for evidence synthesis called realist synthesis. Informed by realist philosophy of science, it seems the most appropriate method because it explores observed outcomes (O) in terms of causal relationship between relevant contexts (C) and generating mechanisms (M). Initial programme theory will be developed through literature scoping. Later on it will be tested against purposively gathered evidence (through database and journal search), which simultaneously will be evaluated for rigour and relevance (whether method used are trustworthy and whether data contributes to theory building). We strive to (1) uncover 'context sensitive' mechanisms that generate feedback via e-portfolio to be (in) effective and (2) define in what circumstances is this mostly likely to occur. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The synthesis report will be written according to the RAMESES guidelines and its findings will be published in peer reviewed articles and presented at relevant conferences. The aim is to inform: (1) policy and decision makers for future-course design; (2) medical educators/clinical supervisors and learners for improved educational use. No formal ethical approval is required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 120863.

Healthcare professionals', students', patients' and donors' perceptions of stem cell research and therapy: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Stem cell research (SCR) and the biomedical potential of developing therapies are crucial topics in biomedicine. Like other biotechnologies, stem cells are context specific entities understood through local conceptualisations of culture, politics, nationhood, as well as their perceived therapeutic efficacy. There is a need to recognise how these developments are understood within the healthcare community and by those who may use them. This protocol describes a systematic literature review that aims to explore healthcare professionals', healthcare students', patients', and donors' perceptions of SCR and therapy (SCR/T) and the factors that influence their perceptions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines a systematic review will be undertaken. Web of Science, Scopus, Medline+Journals @Ovid and Ariti Library will be systematically searched for studies on healthcare professionals', healthcare students', patients' and donors' perceptions of SCR and developing therapies. All articles will be screened by a researcher for inclusion and evaluation based on 12 criteria for evaluating qualitative research. At least 20% of articles will also be reviewed by a second researcher and any disagreement will be solved via consensus. Data extracted from the articles will be analysed using thematic synthesis enabling the identification of concepts across studies and the development of new theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As part of a larger research project, ethical approval has been provided by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. This review will be able to determine the impact that certain perceptions of SCR/T will have on the development of future medical knowledge and practice. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018103627.