Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26793723›Full record

ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2016

Research priorities in medical education at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences:categories and subcategories in the Iranian context.

Parisa Nabeiei, Mitra Amini, Shirin Ghanavati, Saadat Marhamati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Early clinical exposure program in learning renal physiology.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Parisa NabeieiQuality Improvement in Clinical Education Research Center, Education Development Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;
Mitra AminiQuality Improvement in Clinical Education Research Center, Education Development Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;
Shirin GhanavatiQuality Improvement in Clinical Education Research Center, Education Development Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;
Saadat MarhamatiShiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResearch in education is a globally significant issue without a long history. Due to the importance of the issue in Health System Development programs, this study intended to determine research priorities in medical education, considering their details and functions. By determining barriers existing in research in education progress, it is tried to make research priorities more functional by recommending acceptable strategies.

methodsThis is a qualitative-descriptive study in two descriptive phases. The goal of these phases was to determine research priorities subcategories in medical education by Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and two rounds of Delphi method. Through the first phase, subcategories of research priorities were determined, using Nominal Group Technique under medical education experts' supervision. Through two rounds of Delphi, a questionnaire was constructed based on the subcategories. Eventually, research priorities were determined based on their highest score (scores more than 7 out of 10).

resultsIn the first phase (NGT), 35 priorities in 5 major fields of medical education were presented. In the second phase, priorities were scored, using Delphi method. Medical Ethics and professionalism gained the highest scores (7.63±1.26) and educational evaluation the lowest (7.28±1.52). In this stage, 7 items were omitted but 2 of them were added again after experts' revision in the third round of Delphi.

conclusionAccording to the results of the present study and based on previous studies, it really seems that the fields of "Learning and Teaching Approaches" and "Medical Ethics and Professionalism" were more important. Because of financial and resource limitations in our country and the importance of research priorities, it is recommended to frequently study "research priorities determination program" at universities.

Indexed as

Delphi methodMedical educationResearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID26793723
PMCPMC4711813

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.