Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research

A systematic review

Jocelyn Huang Schiller, Gary L Beck Dallaghan, Terry Kind, Heather McLauchlan, Joseph Gigante, Sherilyn Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Objectives: Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects. Methods: Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master’s degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11). Conclusions: Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)328-335
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the Medical Library Association
Volume105
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017

Fingerprint

health science
Health Education
funding
Research
education
graduate
Multi-Institutional Systems
information center
Librarians
Graduate Medical Education
Education
Information Centers
Financial Support
descriptive statistics
resources
research method
English language
coding
librarian
MEDLINE

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics
  • Library and Information Sciences

Cite this

Schiller, J. H., Beck Dallaghan, G. L., Kind, T., McLauchlan, H., Gigante, J., & Smith, S. (2017). Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research: A systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(4), 328-335. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.134

Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research : A systematic review. / Schiller, Jocelyn Huang; Beck Dallaghan, Gary L; Kind, Terry; McLauchlan, Heather; Gigante, Joseph; Smith, Sherilyn.

In: Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 105, No. 4, 01.10.2017, p. 328-335.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Schiller, JH, Beck Dallaghan, GL, Kind, T, McLauchlan, H, Gigante, J & Smith, S 2017, 'Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research: A systematic review', Journal of the Medical Library Association, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 328-335. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.134
Schiller, Jocelyn Huang ; Beck Dallaghan, Gary L ; Kind, Terry ; McLauchlan, Heather ; Gigante, Joseph ; Smith, Sherilyn. / Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research : A systematic review. In: Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2017 ; Vol. 105, No. 4. pp. 328-335.
@article{06d42942b8e945ee887a11b1717abfd2,
title = "Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research: A systematic review",
abstract = "Objectives: Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects. Methods: Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53{\%}) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87{\%} listed external funding, 37{\%} listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17{\%}) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89{\%}) publications listed an author with a master’s degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78{\%}) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22{\%}) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38{\%}; n=44), knowledge (26{\%}; n=31), or skill assessment (23{\%}; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9{\%}; n=11). Conclusions: Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.",
author = "Schiller, {Jocelyn Huang} and {Beck Dallaghan}, {Gary L} and Terry Kind and Heather McLauchlan and Joseph Gigante and Sherilyn Smith",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5195/jmla.2017.134",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "105",
pages = "328--335",
journal = "Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA",
issn = "1536-5050",
publisher = "Medical Library Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Characteristics of multi-institutional health sciences education research

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Schiller, Jocelyn Huang

AU - Beck Dallaghan, Gary L

AU - Kind, Terry

AU - McLauchlan, Heather

AU - Gigante, Joseph

AU - Smith, Sherilyn

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Objectives: Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects. Methods: Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master’s degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11). Conclusions: Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.

AB - Objectives: Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects. Methods: Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master’s degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11). Conclusions: Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031100271&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031100271&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5195/jmla.2017.134

DO - 10.5195/jmla.2017.134

M3 - Review article

VL - 105

SP - 328

EP - 335

JO - Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

JF - Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

SN - 1536-5050

IS - 4

ER -