Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31488122›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2019

Exploring taught masters education for healthcare practitioners: a systematic review of literature.

Mohammad Madi, Hayat Hamzeh, Mark Griffiths, Alison Rushton, Nicola R Heneghan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Mohammad MadiDepartment of Physical and Occupational therapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Hashemite University, Zarqa, 13133, Jordan.
Hayat HamzehDepartment of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan.
Mark GriffithsSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Alison RushtonCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Nicola R HeneghanCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. N.Heneghan@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7599-3674

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMasters-level education is a key pathway of professional development for healthcare practitioners. Whilst there is evidence that Masters-level education leads to career enhancement, it is unclear how the programme pedagogy contributes to this. The objective was to: (1) examine the programme pedagogies and context that supports learning, and (2) synthesise the outputs, outcomes and impact of Masters-level healthcare programmes.

methodsA systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Collaboration handbook and is reported in line with PRISMA. Using pre-defined key terms and eligibility criteria, two reviewers independently searched Medline, ERIC, Web of Science, ProQuest, and CINAHL Plus databases from inception to 14th November 2016, reference lists of retrieved articles and selected websites. Data were extracted independently. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. A Weight of Evidence Framework enabled evaluation of the overall quality of evidence. Data were synthesised using thematic qualitative analysis.

resultsThirty-five studies were included. All studies were retrospective, evaluated programmes in nursing (n = 19), physiotherapy (n = 6), general and family medicine (n = 4), public health (n = 3), dentistry (n = 1), interdisciplinary (n = 1), and occupational therapy (n = 1). Most studies were rated low in methodological quality, with an overall low to moderate weight of evidence for programmes' outcomes and impact. Pedagogies that promote social participation and knowledge co-construction, reflection, learner-centred approach, relevance and authenticity influenced outcomes and impact. CONCLUSION(S): Notwithstanding the low to moderate weight of evidence, the review identified multiple positive outcomes of Master-level education for healthcare practitioners. Whilst the pedagogies that contributed to such positive outcomes were examined in some studies, there is a need to further explore links between programme pedagogy, outputs, outcomes and impact. A cultural approach to evaluation may capture how M-level education drives changes.

Indexed as

Education, ProfessionalHealth PersonnelHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePublic HealthQualitative ResearchImpact evaluationMasters educationProgramme outcomes

Identifiers

PMID31488122
PMCPMC6729035

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.