Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Perspectives on Medical Education
Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education 5/2018

Open Access 01-10-2018 | Review Article

Examining the readiness of best evidence in medical education guides for integration into educational practice: A meta-synthesis

Authors: Lauren A. Maggio, Aliki Thomas, H. Carrie Chen, John P. A. Ioannidis, Steven L. Kanter, Candace Norton, Nancy H. Tannery, Anthony R. Artino Jr.

Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education | Issue 5/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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 that is not useful to educators.

Methods

A librarian searched Web of Science for knowledge syntheses, specifically Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Guides. This meta-synthesis focuses on BEME Guides because of their explicit goal to inform educational practice and policy. 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 on the review team. 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.
Literature
1.
2.
Fernandez N. Evidence-based arguments in support of medical education reform. Med Educ. 2014;48:347–8.CrossRef
3.
Corral J, Mortaz Hejri S, van Schalkwyk S, Gordon M. Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review process redesigned for methodological rigor, shorter timeline and author support. Med Teach. 2017;39:898.CrossRef
4.
Tractenberg RE, Gordon M. Supporting evidence-informed teaching in biomedical and health professions education through knowledge translation: an interdisciplinary literature review. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29:268–79.CrossRef
5.
Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94:485–514.CrossRef
6.
7.
Hoffmann TC, Oxman AD, Ioannidis JP, et al. Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions. BMJ. 2017;358:j2998.CrossRef
8.
Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336:1472–4.CrossRef
9.
Hoffmann TC, Walker MF, Langhorne P, et al. What’s in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e9051.CrossRef
10.
11.
12.
Gordon M, Gibbs T. STORIES statement: publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis. BMC Med. 2014;12:143.CrossRef
13.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRef
14.
Yepes-Rios M, Dudek N, Duboyce R, et al. The failure to fail underperforming trainees in health professions education: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 42. Med Teach. 2016;38:1092–9.CrossRef
15.
Walpole SC, Pearson D, Coad J, Barna S. What do tomorrow’s doctors need to learn about ecosystems?—A BEME Systematic Review: BEME Guide No. 36. Med Teach. 2016;38:338–52.CrossRef
16.
Ahmadi SF, Baradaran HR, Ahmadi E. Effectiveness of teaching evidence-based medicine to undergraduate medical students: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2015;37:21–30.CrossRef
17.
Ahmed R, Farooq A, Storie D, Hartling L, Oswald A. Building capacity for education research among clinical educators in the health professions: a BEME (Best Evidence Medical Education) Systematic Review of the outcomes of interventions: BEME Guide No. 34. Med Teach. 2016;38:123–36.CrossRef
18.
Akl EA, Pretorius RW, Sackett K, et al. The effect of educational games on medical students’ learning outcomes: a systematic review: BEME Guide No 14. Med Teach. 2010;32:16–27.CrossRef
19.
Birden H, Glass N, Wilson I, et al. Teaching professionalism in medical education: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 25. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1252–e66.CrossRef
20.
Buckley S, Coleman J, Davison I, et al. The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11. Med Teach. 2009;31:282–98.CrossRef
21.
Cake MA, Bell MA, Williams JC, et al. Which professional (non-technical) competencies are most important to the success of graduate veterinarians? A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review: BEME Guide No. 38. Med Teach. 2016;38:550–63.CrossRef
22.
Cherry MG, Brown JM, Bethell GS, Neal T, Shaw NJ. Features of educational interventions that lead to compliance with hand hygiene in healthcare professionals within a hospital care setting. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 22. Med Teach. 2012;34:e406–20.CrossRef
23.
Cherry MG, Fletcher I, O’Sullivan H, Shaw N. What impact do structured educational sessions to increase emotional intelligence have on medical students? BEME Guide No. 17. Med Teach. 2012;34:11–9.CrossRef
24.
de Jong J, Visser M, Van Dijk N, van der Vleuten C, Wieringa-de Waard M. A systematic review of the relationship between patient mix and learning in work-based clinical settings. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 24. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1181–e96.CrossRef
25.
Dornan T, Littlewood S, Margolis SA, et al. How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2006;28:3–18.CrossRef
26.
Ellaway RH, O’Gorman L, Strasser R, et al. A critical hybrid realist-outcomes systematic review of relationships between medical education programmes and communities: BEME Guide No. 35. Med Teach. 2016;38:229–45.CrossRef
27.
Fatmi M, Hartling L, Hillier T, Campbell S, Oswald AE. The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME Guide No. 30. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1608–e24.CrossRef
28.
Goveia J, Van Stiphout F, Cheung Z, et al. Educational interventions to improve the meaningful use of Electronic Health Records: a review of the literature: BEME Guide No. 29. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1551–e60.CrossRef
29.
Hamdy H, Prasad K, Anderson MB, et al. BEME systematic review: predictive values of measurements obtained in medical schools and future performance in medical practice. Med Teach. 2006;28:103–16.CrossRef
30.
Hammick M, Freeth D, Koppel I, Reeves S, Barr H. A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9. Med Teach. 2007;29:735–51.CrossRef
31.
Harris J, Kearley K, Heneghan C, et al. Are journal clubs effective in supporting evidence-based decision making? A systematic review. BEME Guide No. 16. Med Teach. 2011;33:9–23.CrossRef
32.
Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Gordon LD, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27:10–28.CrossRef
33.
Jones M, Hutt P, Eastwood S, Singh S. Impact of an intercalated BSc on medical student performance and careers: a BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 28. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1493–e510.CrossRef
34.
Losco CD, Grant WD, Armson A, Meyer AJ, Walker BF. Effective methods of teaching and learning in anatomy as a basic science: A BEME systematic review: BEME guide no. 44. Med Teach. 2017;39:234–43.CrossRef
35.
Mosley C, Dewhurst C, Molloy S, Shaw BN. What is the impact of structured resuscitation training on healthcare practitioners, their clients and the wider service? A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 20. Med Teach. 2012;34:e349–e85.CrossRef
36.
Nelson C, Hartling L, Campbell S, Oswald AE. The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21. Med Teach. 2012;34:e386–e405.CrossRef
37.
O’Dunn-Orto A, Hartling L, Campbell S, Oswald AE. Teaching musculoskeletal clinical skills to medical trainees and physicians: a Best Evidence in Medical Education systematic review of strategies and their effectiveness: BEME Guide No. 18. Med Teach. 2012;34:93–102.CrossRef
38.
39.
Passi V, Johnson S, Peile E, et al. Doctor role modelling in medical education: BEME Guide No. 27. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1422–e36.CrossRef
40.
Querido SJ, Vergouw D, Wigersma L, et al. Dynamics of career choice among students in undergraduate medical courses. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 33. Med Teach. 2016;38:18–29.CrossRef
41.
Rees EL, Hawarden AW, Dent G, et al. Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 37. Med Teach. 2016;38:443–55.CrossRef
42.
Reeves S, Fletcher S, Barr H, et al. A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Med Teach. 2016;38:656–68.CrossRef
43.
Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Med Teach. 2016;38:769–86.CrossRef
44.
Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teach. 2006;28:497–526.CrossRef
45.
Steinert Y, Naismith L, Mann K. Faculty development initiatives designed to promote leadership in medical education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 19. Med Teach. 2012;34:483–503.CrossRef
46.
Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach. 2012;34:e421–e44.CrossRef
47.
Tochel C, Haig A, Hesketh A, et al. The effectiveness of portfolios for post-graduate assessment and education: BEME Guide No 12. Med Teach. 2009;31:299–318.CrossRef
48.
Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians’ clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teach. 2006;28:117–28.CrossRef
49.
Yardley S, Littlewood S, Margolis SA, et al. What has changed in the evidence for early experience? Update of a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2010;32:740–6.CrossRef
50.
Barrett A, Galvin R, Steinert Y, et al. A BEME (Best Evidence in Medical Education) systematic review of the use of workplace-based assessment in identifying and remediating poor performance among postgraduate medical trainees. Syst Rev. 2015;4:65.CrossRef
51.
Cherry MG, Brown JM, Neal T, Shaw BN. What features of educational interventions lead to competence in aseptic insertion and maintenance of CV catheters in acute care? BEME Guide No. 15. Med Teach. 2010;32:198–218.CrossRef
52.
Colthart I, Bagnall G, Evans A, et al. The effectiveness of self-assessment on the identification of learner needs, learner activity, and impact on clinical practice: BEME Guide no. 10. Med Teach. 2008;30:124–45.CrossRef
53.
Buckley S, Ambrose L, Anderson E, et al. Tools for structured team communication in pre-registration health professions education: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review: BEME Guide No. 41. Med Teach. 2016;38:966–80.CrossRef
54.
Thistlethwaite JE, Bartle E, Chong AA, et al. A review of longitudinal community and hospital placements in medical education: BEME Guide No. 26. Med Teach. 2013;35:e1340–64.CrossRef
55.
Aspegren K. BEME Guide No. 2: Teaching and learning communication skills in medicine—a review with quality grading of articles. Med Teach. 1999;21:563–70.CrossRef
56.
Harden RM, Grant J, Buckley G, Hart IR. BEME Guide No. 1: Best Evidence Medical Education. Med Teach. 1999;21:553–62.CrossRef
57.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Plos Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRef
58.
59.
Gordon M, Patricio MF. Best evidence medical and health professional education (BEME) collaboration: a moving spotlight. Med Teach. 2016;38:1–2.CrossRef
60.
Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:13–24.CrossRef
61.
Gordon M. Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review. Med Teach. 2016;38:746–50.CrossRef
62.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Plos Med. 2009;6:e1000100.CrossRef
63.
Dobbins M, Rosenbaum P, Plews N, Law M, Fysh A. Information transfer: what do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implement Sci. 2007;2:20.CrossRef
64.
65.
Serghiou S, Ioannidis JPA. Altmetric scores, citations, and publication of studies posted as preprints. JAMA. 2018;319:402–4.CrossRef
66.
Onyura B, Legare F, Baker L, et al. Affordances of knowledge translation in medical education: a qualitative exploration of empirical knowledge use among medical educators. Acad Med. 2015;90:518–24.CrossRef
67.
Kreuter MW, Wray RJ. Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav. 2003;27(Suppl 3):S227–S32.CrossRef
68.
Petkovic J, Welch V, Jacob MH, et al. The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:162.CrossRef
69.
Woolf SH, Purnell JQ, Simon SM, et al. Translating evidence into population health improvement: strategies and barriers. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:463–82.CrossRef
70.
71.
Regehr G. It’s NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Med Educ. 2010;44:31–9.CrossRef
72.
Gibbs T, Durning S, Van Der Vleuten C. Theories in medical education: towards creating a union between educational practice and research traditions. Med Teach. 2011;33:183–7.CrossRef
73.
Thomas A, Bussieres A. Knowledge translation and implementation science in health professions education: time for clarity? Acad Med. 2016;91:e20.CrossRef
74.
Varpio L, Bell R, Hollingworth G, et al. Is transferring an educational innovation actually a process of transformation? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17:357–67.CrossRef
75.
76.
Ahmadzai N, Newberry SJ, Maglione MA, et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:104.CrossRef
77.
Garritty C, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews: an international survey. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e9914.CrossRef
78.
Newberry SJ, Ahmadzai N, Motala A, et al. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. Surveillance and Identification of Signals for Updating Systematic Reviews: Implementation and Early Experience. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
Metadata
Title
Examining the readiness of best evidence in medical education guides for integration into educational practice: A meta-synthesis
Authors
Lauren A. Maggio
Aliki Thomas
H. Carrie Chen
John P. A. Ioannidis
Steven L. Kanter
Candace Norton
Nancy H. Tannery
Anthony R. Artino Jr.
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Published in
Perspectives on Medical Education / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 2212-2761
Electronic ISSN: 2212-277X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0450-9

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Perspectives on Medical Education 5/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

End-of-life care in the Dutch medical curricula

Editorial

Preprints: Facilitating early discovery, access, and feedback

Original Article

Challenges for conducting and teaching handovers as collaborative conversations: an interview study at teaching ICUs

Show and Tell

Lessons learned from a student-driven initiative to design and implement an Organ and Tissue Donation course across Canadian medical schools

Original Article

Fostering medical students’ lifelong learning skills with a dashboard, coaching and learning planning

Original Article

How clinicians integrate humanism in their clinical workplace—‘Just trying to put myself in their human being shoes’