View in EDS

Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders.
Authors: Burford, Bryan1 (AUTHOR) bryan.burford@newcastle.ac.uk, Yeates, Peter2 (AUTHOR), Bluemel, Anna Harvey1 (AUTHOR), Park, Sophie3 (AUTHOR), Sandars, John4 (AUTHOR), Henry, Cecily5 (AUTHOR), Corness‐Parr, Clare2 (AUTHOR), Conn, Richard6 (AUTHOR), Gale, Tom7 (AUTHOR), O'Brien, Tim7 (AUTHOR), Goddard‐Fuller, Rikki8 (AUTHOR), Vance, Gill1 (AUTHOR), Ellis, Janice1 (AUTHOR)
Source: Clinical Teacher. Aug2025, Vol. 22 Issue 4, p1-10. 10p.
Subject Terms: *Clinical education, *Outcome-based education, *Outcome assessment (Education), Stakeholder analysis, Medical personnel
Abstract: Introduction: High quality clinical education research is required to ensure optimal education and training of healthcare professionals. Such research should address stakeholder needs and have a clear route to achieving benefit. We conducted the first UK‐wide priority setting exercise for clinical education research to identify research priorities and how they are determined. Methods: We used a two‐stage process, derived from similar studies, to identify the research priorities of stakeholders including funders, regulators, educators and public representatives. Stage one consisted of two rounds of online surveys, gathering free‐text suggestions of priorities and rating the resulting statements. A public engagement author advised on wording. Stage two used a stakeholder workshop to discuss principles and processes for operationalising priorities and maximising impact. Results: Round 1 survey respondents (n = 256) provided 1819 suggestions, from which content analysis synthesised 46 statements describing disparate research priorities. Distributions of ratings in Round 2 (n = 199) indicated that all were perceived as important by most respondents, although professionals and members of the public differed in their rating of some items. Workshop participants (n = 70) considered priorities to be dynamic and contextually dependent and linked to expected impact. Discussion: The study identifies broad priorities for clinical education research, but recognises that simple prioritisation is insufficient, and develops understanding of how priorities arise, including differences between stakeholder groups, and changes over time. Recognising an integrated 'system of impact' may maximise opportunities for stakeholders—researchers, policy actors, knowledge users and funders—to effectively communicate and optimise research impact in the short and longer term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Clinical Teacher is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Introduction: High quality clinical education research is required to ensure optimal education and training of healthcare professionals. Such research should address stakeholder needs and have a clear route to achieving benefit. We conducted the first UK‐wide priority setting exercise for clinical education research to identify research priorities and how they are determined. Methods: We used a two‐stage process, derived from similar studies, to identify the research priorities of stakeholders including funders, regulators, educators and public representatives. Stage one consisted of two rounds of online surveys, gathering free‐text suggestions of priorities and rating the resulting statements. A public engagement author advised on wording. Stage two used a stakeholder workshop to discuss principles and processes for operationalising priorities and maximising impact. Results: Round 1 survey respondents (n = 256) provided 1819 suggestions, from which content analysis synthesised 46 statements describing disparate research priorities. Distributions of ratings in Round 2 (n = 199) indicated that all were perceived as important by most respondents, although professionals and members of the public differed in their rating of some items. Workshop participants (n = 70) considered priorities to be dynamic and contextually dependent and linked to expected impact. Discussion: The study identifies broad priorities for clinical education research, but recognises that simple prioritisation is insufficient, and develops understanding of how priorities arise, including differences between stakeholder groups, and changes over time. Recognising an integrated 'system of impact' may maximise opportunities for stakeholders—researchers, policy actors, knowledge users and funders—to effectively communicate and optimise research impact in the short and longer term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:17434971
DOI:10.1111/tct.70144