Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34457846›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2020

Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Health Sciences Education: a Scoping Review.

Tanishq Suryavanshi, Sam Lambert, Sarrah Lal, Alvin Chin, Teresa M Chan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Medical Student Enrollment in a Voluntary Medical Innovation Course.Advances in medical education and practice · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Tanishq SuryavanshiDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Sam LambertDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Sarrah LalDepartment of Medicine, Division of Education & Innovation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Alvin ChinRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Emergency Medicine Training Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Teresa M ChanDepartment of Medicine, Division of Education & Innovation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6104-462X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThis scoping review aimed to explore the connection between health education and entrepreneurship and to identify gaps in the current literature, educational models, and best practices regarding teaching medical professionals about entrepreneurship and innovation.

methodsThe methodology for this review was based on the principles of Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) model for scoping review design. Results from Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Emcare, AMED, PubMed, and Google Scholar were scanned, filtered, and mapped.

resultsFifty-nine unique papers were found and mapped. The papers discussed common themes, including the entrepreneurial environment (

conclusionThough some programs are described, few have demonstrated efficacy. More attention should be paid towards faculty-level recruitment, development and reward, so that they may in turn teach these approaches. Those involved with educational planning can help close this gap.

Indexed as

EntrepreneurshipHealthcareInnovationMedical educationScoping review

Identifiers

PMID34457846
PMCPMC8368672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.