Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24846349›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2014

Medical education research: is participation fair?

Kieran Walsh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kieran WalshBMJ Learning, BMJ Group, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR, UK, kmwalsh@bmjgroup.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical researchers and ethicists emphasise the importance of equity, fairness and justice in general medical research participation. No individual or group should be over-represented or under-represented in research-there should be fair participation. Thus far little thought has been given to fair participation in medical education research. There is no evidence based answer as to whether vulnerable groups are ever exploited in medical education research, or whether other individuals or groups are overlooked. However the heavy reliance on undergraduate learners as subjects for medical education research creates two key threats to the fairness of that research. First, there is a risk that undergraduate learners, as a potentially vulnerable population, may be exploited in research settings. Often the faculty carrying out medical education research will be the same faculty that are responsible for delivering medical education and assessing medical students' competencies. It is possible as a result that medical students might feel pressured to participate in research. Second, there is a risk that other important groups of learners may be inadequately represented. Much medical education research is carried out on undergraduates and relatively little on those who have been doing CPD for many years. Thus much of our research concentrates on only a small proportion of medical learning. The relatively small amount of research carried out on those doing continuing professional development (CPD) is probably because of the difficulties of recruiting and retaining this group of learners in research programmes. Both risks threaten the integrity and usefulness of the resulting research product. Unfair participation in medical education research programmes could have serious repercussions for learners at all levels.

Identifiers

PMID24846349
PMCPMC4235809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.