Clinician–Educator Tracks for Trainees in Graduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review

Friedman, Karen A.; Lester, Janice; Young, John Q.

doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002814

Cited by 34 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We included 101 studies (See Appendix for a diagram of the inclusion process) 18‐118 . On average 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4, range 0‐42) were published annually (See Appendix ) with the most published in 2019 (n = 42; 41.6%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first scoping review in our sample was published in 2011. Scoping reviews were featured in 13 of the 14 journals with Academic Medicine (n = 28, 27.7%), 18,24,33,35‐38,44,48,49,52,55,58,61,62,68,72,73,76,90,92,94,97,100,104,112,115,116 Medical Education (n = 18, 17.8%) 20,22,27,32,40,46,56,60,63,65‐67,77,103,108‐111 and BMC Medical Education (n = 16, 15.8%) 19,26,29,39,45,50,51,58,69,70,84,85,87,96,105,113 publishing the most. Clinical Teacher did not publish any scoping reviews during this time period.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A single review featured one author only 111 . Lead authors were based in 16 countries with the majority in Canada (n = 31, 30.7%), 18,19,22,24,28,37,40,47,57,62,71,80,81,86,94,95,97‐100,102,103,106,108,112‐118 the United States (n = 27, 26.7%) 32,35,36,38,41‐45,48,49,52‐55,59,61,68,72‐74,77,82,91,92,104,109 and Australia (n = 9, 8.9%) 30,46,58,67,75,79,89,93,96 . In 23 reviews (22.8%), authors described their team members' backgrounds and expertise in relation to their scoping review 20‐22,27,33,34,43,44,58,60,66,67,71‐74,76,86,88,97,99,104,112 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While not all scoping reviews had available citation data, those that did (n = 89) were cited, on average, 6.4 times (SD = 11.7, median = 2, range 0‐61) 19‐23,25‐32.34‐37,39,40,44‐46,48‐58,60‐71,73‐81,83‐90,92‐118 . Eighteen articles (17.8%) had not been cited 19‐23,25,26,28‐31,37,39,45,53,54,78,88 ; of those, 10 (55.6%) 19‐23,25,26,28,37,54 were published after 2019.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If one is already determined to pursue a career as a clinicianeducator, clinician-educator tracks are now more readily available during residency. 26,27 During postgraduate training, one can pursue residency tracks and/or institutional professional educator development longitudinal programs, where available. If no programs exist locally, fellows and junior faculty can seek out programs at professional society meetings.…”

Section: Strategies For Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%