It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
To support evidence-informed education, health professions education (HPE) stakeholders encourage the creation and use of knowledge syntheses or reviews. However, it is unclear if these knowledge syntheses are ready for translation into educational practice. Without understanding the readiness, defined by three criteria—quality, accessibility and relevance—we risk translating weak evidence into practice and/or providing information that is not useful to educators.
Methods
A librarian searched Web of Science for knowledge syntheses, specifically Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) Guides. This meta-synthesis focuses on BEME Guides because of their explicit goal to inform educational practice and policy. Two authors extracted data from all Guides, guided by the 25-item STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis (STORIES).
Results
Forty-two Guides published in Medical Teacher between 1999 and 2017 were analyzed. No Guide met all STORIES criteria, but all included structured summaries and most described their literature search (n = 39) and study inclusion/exclusion (n = 40) procedures. Eleven Guides reported the presence of theory and/or educational principles, and eight consulted with external subject matter experts. Accessibility to each Guide’s full-text and supplemental materials was variable.
Discussion
For a subset of HPE knowledge syntheses, BEME Guides, this meta-synthesis identifies factors that support readiness and indicates potential areas of improvement, such as consistent access to Guides and inclusion of external subject matter experts on the review team. This analysis is useful for understanding the current readiness of HPE knowledge syntheses and informing future reviews to evolve so they can catalyze translation of evidence into educational practice.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, USA (GRID:grid.265436.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 0421 5525)
2 McGill University, Montreal, Canada (GRID:grid.14709.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8649)
3 Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, USA (GRID:grid.213910.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 1955 1644)
4 Stanford University, School of Medicine and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000000419368956)
5 University of Missouri-Kansas City, School of Medicine, Kansas City, USA (GRID:grid.266756.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 2179 926X)
6 National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA (GRID:grid.94365.3d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2297 5165)
7 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA (GRID:grid.21925.3d) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9000)