Whose problem is it anyway? Confronting myths of ‘problems’ in health professions education

Author:

Thomas Aliki1ORCID,Ellaway Rachel H.2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences McGill University and Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation Montreal Quebec Canada

2. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe growing interest in knowledge translation and implementation science, both in clinical practice and in health professions education (HPE), is reflected in the number of studies that have sought to address what are believed to be evidence‐practice gaps. Though this effort may be intended to ensure practice improvements are better aligned with research evidence, there is a common assumption that the problems researchers explore and the answers they generate are meaningful and applicable to practitioner needs.MethodsThis Mythology paper considers the nature of problems from HPE as the focus of HPE research and the ways in which they may or may not be aligned. The authors argue that, in an applied field such as HPE, it is vital that researchers better understand how their research problems relate to practitioner needs and what the limitations on evidence uptake might be. Not only can this establish clearer paths between evidence and action, but it also requires a rethink of much of knowledge translation and implementation science thinking and practice.ResultsThe authors explore five myths: whether everything in HPE is a problem; whether practitioner needs involve problem solving; whether practitioner problems are resolvable with sufficient evidence; whether researchers effectively target practitioner problems; and whether studies that focus on solving practitioner problems make significant contributions to the literature.ConclusionsTo advance the conversation on the connections between problems and HPE research, the authors propose ways in which knowledge translation and implementation science might be approached differently.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Education,General Medicine

Reference26 articles.

1. NivenD.Closing the 17‐year gap between scientific evidence and patient care.University Affairs. January 17 2017:https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in‐my‐opinion/closing‐17‐year‐gap‐scientific‐evidence‐patient‐care/

2. Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3