The Prato Statement on cost and value in professional and interprofessional education

Maloney, Stephen; Reeves, Scott; Rivers, George; Ilić, Dragan; Foo, Jonathan; Walsh, Kieran

doi:10.1080/13561820.2016.1257255

Cited by 39 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Students are abundant and readily available; training them to portray patient roles may be cost‐effective, scalable, valuable and sustainable. In line with previous research about the paucity of reporting SBE costs, this review suggests that peer simulation shows promise for reducing costs and further research to determine the cost‐effectiveness of peer simulation is now needed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Immediate costs were determined to be 53.6% higher for learning with SPs than for learning with peers as patients . Key to any SBE approach is the sustainability of its implementation into the curriculum and educators must consider the effectiveness, cost and value of any educational approaches selected . With reference to this point, most observational studies in this systematic review employed peer simulation in response to the financial and organisational constraints imposed by working with SPs .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Students as patients: A systematic review of peer simulation in health care professional education

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Evidence supports the substitution of both clinical placement time and traditional educational activities with simulation-based education (SBE). However, lack of resources can be a barrier to SBE implementation. Peer simulation provides an alternative to simulated patient (SP)-based SBE by educating students to portray patient roles.This diversifies learning experiences for students using SBE and may decrease costs.Objectives: This study aimed to determine the impact of students portraying the roles of patients in a simulation-based learning environment (peer simulation) on learning outcomes in entry-level health care professional students.Methods: Seven databases were searched (from inception to 8 May 2019) using terms including 'peer simulation,' 'role-play' and 'simulated/standardised patient.' The studies included described a health care professional student SBE interaction involving peer simulation. Data were extracted by two independent investigators. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). A descriptive analysis was completed and meta-analysis conducted in instances in which outcomes could be pooled. Results:A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Constructs measured by the studies included communication, empathy, self-efficacy and confidence. Five randomised controlled trials compared peer simulation with the use of SPs and demonstrated greater or equivalent patient empathy gains in peer simulation. Meta-analysis determined no difference in communication capabilities between the two groups.Students perceived peer simulation as comparably valuable and frequently superior to other forms of learning. This review was unable to determine effective design features of peer simulation initiatives. Conclusions:Students were positive about peer simulation, but there has been limited evaluation of learning outcome attainment. Significant heterogeneity was observed; studies were diverse in design, outcome measures and the training provided for peer patients. Peer simulation positively influences student communication and development of patient empathy and offers an alternative to learning with SPs. Further rigorous research is required to understand the impact of peer simulation for a broader range of learning outcomes and to confirm the impact of this developing educational approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students as patients: A systematic review of peer simulation in health care professional education

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With respect to the former, we encourage HPE researchers to seek additional economic expertise, potentially from the fields of health or education economics. For the latter, the necessary driving force is likely to come from education decision makers and funding bodies that demand cost data . Further encouragement to consider cost may be provided by the developers of education‐related checklists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resources for health professions education (HPE) are limited. We must be prudent in how we spend these resources and strive to fund education that provides maximum value for a given cost . Although studies evaluating learning outcomes are common, the cost implications of HPE are rarely considered .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost evaluations in health professions education: a systematic review of methods and reporting quality

Foo

Cook

Walsh³

et al. 2019

Medical Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context High‐quality research into education costs can inform better decision making. Improvements to cost research can be guided by information about the research questions, methods and reporting of studies evaluating costs in health professions education (HPE). Our objective was to appraise the overall state of the field and evaluate temporal trends in the methods and reporting quality of cost evaluations in HPE research. Methods We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EMBASE, Business Source Complete and ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre) databases on 31 July 2017. To evaluate trends over time, we sampled research reports at 5‐year intervals (2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016). All original research studies in HPE that reported a cost outcome were included. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and the BMJ economic checklist were used to appraise methodological and reporting quality, respectively. Trends in quality over time were analysed. Results A total of 78 studies were included, of which 16 were published in 2001, 15 in 2006, 20 in 2011 and 27 in 2016. The region most commonly represented was the USA (n = 43). The profession most commonly referred to was that of the physician (n = 46). The mean ± standard deviation (SD) MERSQI score was 10.9 ± 2.6 out of 18, with no significant change over time (p = 0.55). The mean ± SD BMJ score was 13.5 ± 7.1 out of 35, with no significant change over time (p = 0.39). A total of 49 (63%) studies stated a cost‐related research question, 23 (29%) stated the type of cost evaluation used, and 31 (40%) described the method of estimating resource quantities and unit costs. A total of 16 studies compared two or more interventions and reported both cost and learning outcomes. Conclusions The absolute number of cost evaluations in HPE is increasing. However, there are shortcomings in the quality of methodology and reporting, and these are not improving over time.

show abstract

“…The aim of using economic analyses for educational innovations is to provide low cost and high value approaches to teaching and learning, allowing evidencebased decision-making about the most appropriate allocation of what are often limited resources in an educational context [71,72]. No such evidence for OOCs emerged from this review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

These may not be the courses you are seeking: a systematic review of open online courses in health professions education

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Open Online Courses (OOCs) are increasingly presented as a possible solution to the many challenges of higher education. However, there is currently little evidence available to support decisions around the use of OOCs in health professions education. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence describing the features of OOCs in health professions education and to analyse their utility for decision-making using a self-developed framework consisting of point scores around effectiveness, learner experiences, feasibility, pedagogy and economics. Methods Electronic searches of PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL were made up to April 2019 using keywords related to OOC variants and health professions. We accepted any type of full text English publication with no exclusions made on the basis of study quality. Data were extracted using a custom-developed, a priori critical analysis framework comprising themes relating to effectiveness, economics, pedagogy, acceptability and learner experience. Results 54 articles were included in the review and 46 were of the lowest levels of evidence, and most were offered by institutions based in the United States (n = 11) and United Kingdom (n = 6). Most studies provided insufficient course detail to make any confident claims about participant learning, although studies published from 2016 were more likely to include information around course aims and participant evaluation. In terms of the five categories identified for analysis, few studies provided sufficiently robust evidence to be used in formal decision making in undergraduate or postgraduate curricula. Conclusion This review highlights a poor state of evidence to support or refute claims regarding the effectiveness of OOCs in health professions education. Health professions educators interested in developing courses of this nature should adopt a critical and cautious position regarding their adoption.

show abstract

The Prato Statement on cost and value in professional and interprofessional education

Cited by 39 publications

References 25 publications

Students as patients: A systematic review of peer simulation in health care professional education

Students as patients: A systematic review of peer simulation in health care professional education

Cost evaluations in health professions education: a systematic review of methods and reporting quality

These may not be the courses you are seeking: a systematic review of open online courses in health professions education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About