"The Best Home for This Paper": A Qualitative Study of How Authors Select Where to Submit Manuscripts.

Introduction: For authors, selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In the discipline of medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journal's prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors' decision making. Methods: The authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis. Results: Participants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journal's impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission. Discussion: The findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of open acces and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige.

Assessment Tools for Patient Notes in Medical Education: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Physician proficiency in clinical encounter documentation is a universal expectation of medical education. However, deficiencies in note writing are frequently identified, which have implications for patient safety, health care quality, and cost. This study aimed to create a compendium of tools for educators' practical implementation or future research. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. PubMed, Embase, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Web of Science, and MedEdPortal were searched for articles published from database inception to November 16, 2023, using the following search terms: documentation, note-writing, patient note, electronic health record note, entrustable professional activity 5, and other terms. For each note-writing assessment tool, information on setting, section(s) of note that was assessed, tool properties, numbers and roles of note writers and graders, weight given, if used in grading, learner performance, and stakeholder satisfaction and feasibility was extracted and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 5,257 articles were identified; 32 studies were included. Eleven studies (34.4%) were published since 2018. Twenty-two studies (68.8%) outlined creating an original assessment tool, whereas 10 (31.2%) assessed a curriculum intervention using a tool. Tools varied in length and complexity. None provided data on equity or fairness to student or resident note writers or about readability for patients. Note writers often had missing or incomplete documentation (mean [SD] total tool score of 60.3% [19.4%] averaged over 25 studies), often improving after intervention. Selected patient note assessment tool studies have been cited a mean (SD) of 6.3 (9.2) times. Approximately half of the tools (53.1%) or their accompanying articles were open access. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse tools have been published to assess patient notes, often identifying deficiencies. This compendium may assist educators and researchers in improving patient care documentation.

E-learning Interventions for Quality Improvement Continuing Medical Education-A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Improving health care quality and patient safety are top priorities for the medical field. Robust continuing medical education (CME) programs represent major interventions to effectively teach quality improvement (QI) principles to practicing physicians. In particular, eLearning, a term describing online and distance learning interventions using digital tools, provides a means for CME interventions to reach broader audiences. Although there has been a focus on CME addressing QI, no knowledge synthesis has focused specifically on eLearning interventions. The purpose of this review was to examine the current landscape of eLearning interventions in QI-focused CME. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley as revised by Levac. We searched five databases and identified 2467 prospective publications, which two authors independently screened for inclusion. From each included article, two authors independently extracted data on the instructional modalities and QI tools used and met regularly to achieve consensus. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. Most studies used blended instruction (n = 12) rather than solely eLearning interventions. Salient findings included the importance of coaching from QI experts and institutional support for planning and implementing eLearning interventions. Lack of protected time and resources for participants were identified as barriers to participation in CME activities, with small practices being disproportionately affected. DISCUSSION: Partnerships between CME developers and sponsoring organizations are vital in creating sustainable eLearning interventions for QI-focused CME. Remote coaching can be an effective strategy to provide ongoing support to geographically separated learners.

Is There a Problem With Evidence in Health Professions Education?

ABSTRACT: What constitutes evidence, what value evidence has, and how the needs of knowledge producers and those who consume this knowledge might be better aligned are questions that continue to challenge the health sciences. In health professions education (HPE), debates on these questions have ebbed and flowed with little sense of resolution or progress. In this article, the authors explore whether there is a problem with evidence in HPE using thought experiments anchored in Argyris' learning loops framework.From a single-loop perspective ("How are we doing?"), there may be many problems with evidence in HPE, but little is known about how research evidence is being used in practice and policy. A double-loop perspective ("Could we do better?") suggests expectations of knowledge producers and knowledge consumers might be too high, which suggests more system-wide approaches to evidence-informed practice in HPE are needed. A triple-loop perspective ("Are we asking the right questions?") highlights misalignments between the dynamics of research and decision-making, such that scholarly inquiry may be better approached as a way of advancing broader conversations, rather than contributing to specific decision-making processes.The authors ask knowledge producers and consumers to be more attentive to the translation from knowledge to evidence. They also argue for more systematic tracking and audit of how research knowledge is used as evidence. Given that research does not always have to serve practical purposes or address the problems of a particular program or institution, the relationship between knowledge and evidence should be understood in terms of changing conversations and influencing decisions.

Physician educators' perceptions of experiences contributing to teaching.

INTRODUCTION: Physician educators are essential in training the next generation of physicians. However, physician educators' perspectives about what experiences they find beneficial to their teaching and the prevalence of these experiences remain unknown. Guided by social cognitive career theory (SCCT) and communities of practice (CoP), we explored what experiences physician educators perceive as beneficial in preparing them to teach. METHODS: In 2019, the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine in the United States surveyed its physician alumni to understand their education experiences during medical school, their current career path and what has contributed to their teaching role. Content analysis was applied to extract themes across the text response. Chi-square analysis was applied to examine if perceived contributing factors vary based on physician educators' gender, specialty and academic ranks. RESULTS: The five most prevalent contributing factors participants (n = 781) identified are (1) experiences gained during residency and fellowship (29.8%), (2) teaching as faculty member (28.9%) and (3) class experiences and peer interaction during medical school (26%). We organised three themes that reflected major avenues of how physician educators acquire teaching skills: reflection about quality teaching, journey as learners and learning by doing. Gender and clinical specialty were differentially associated with contributing factors such as faculty development and meta-reflection. CONCLUSION: The results are in line with theories of SCCT and CoP, in which we identified self-directed learning and regulation in shaping physician educators' teaching. The findings also revealed gaps and potential contexts for more formalised teaching practices to develop physician educators.

Describing the Landscape of Medical Education Preprints on MedRxiv: Current Trends and Future Recommendations.

PURPOSE: A preprint is a version of a research manuscript posted to a preprint server prior to peer review. Preprints enable authors to quickly and openly share research, afford opportunities for expedient feedback, and enable immediate listing of research on grant and promotion applications. In medical education, most journals welcome preprints, which suggests that preprints play a role in the field's discourse. Yet, little is known about medical education preprints, including author characteristics, preprint use, and ultimate publication status. This study provides an overview of preprints in medical education to better understand their role in the field's discourse. METHOD: The authors queried medRxiv, a preprint repository, to identify preprints categorized as "medical education" and downloaded related metadata. CrossRef was queried to gather information on preprints later published in journals. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2022, 204 preprints were classified in medRxiv as "medical education," with most deposited in 2021 (n = 76; 37.3%). On average, preprint full-texts were downloaded 1,875.2 times, and all were promoted on social media. Preprints were authored, on average, by 5.9 authors. Corresponding authors were based in 41 countries, with 45.6% in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Almost half (n = 101; 49.5%) became published articles in predominantly peer-reviewed journals. Preprints appeared in 65 peer-reviewed journals, with BMC Medical Education (n = 9; 8.9%) most represented. CONCLUSIONS: Medical education research is being deposited as preprints, which are promoted, heavily accessed, and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, including medical education journals. Considering the benefits of preprints and the slowness of medical education publishing, it is likely that preprint depositing will increase and preprints will be integrated into the field's discourse. The authors propose next steps to facilitate responsible and effective creation and use of preprints.

'My doctor self and my human self': A qualitative study of physicians' presentation of self on social media.

INTRODUCTION: When using social media, physicians are encouraged and trained to maintain separate professional and personal identities. However, this separation is difficult and even undesirable, as the blurring of personal and professional online presence can influence patient trust. Thus, it is necessary to develop policies and educational resources that are more responsive to the blurring of personal and professional boundaries on social media. This study aims to provide an understanding of how physicians present themselves holistically online to inform such policies and resources. METHODS: Twenty-eight US-based physicians who use social media were interviewed. Participants were asked to describe how and why they use social media, specifically Twitter (rebranded as 'X' in 2023). Interviews were complemented by data from the participants' Twitter profiles. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis guided by Goffman's dramaturgical model. This model uses the metaphor of a stage to characterise how individuals attempt to control the aspects of the identities-or faces-they display during social interactions. RESULTS: The participants presented seven faces, which included professionally focused faces (e.g. networker) and those more personal in nature (e.g. human). The participants crafted and maintained these faces through discursive choices in their tweets and profiles, which were motivated by their audience's perceptions. We identified overlaps and tensions at the intersections of these faces, which posed professional and personal challenges for participants. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians strategically emphasise their more professional or personal faces according to their objectives and motivations in different communicative situations, and tailor their language and content to better reach their target audiences. While tensions arise between these faces, physicians still prefer to project a rounded, integral image of themselves on social media. This suggests a need to reconsider social media policies and related educational initiatives to better align with the realities of these digital environments.

Bibliometric Networks for Researchers in Health Professions Education.

Bibliometric network analysis is an analytical approach that enables researchers to visualize the relationships between a set of research items (e.g., journal articles, books). There are 3 types of bibliometric network analyses, and multiple tools to conduct the analysis and visualize results (e.g., VOSviewer , 1Gephi2 ). For health professions educators, bibliometric network analysis is valuable for discovering the field's emerging trends, popular topics, and multidisciplinary relationships. 3,4.