Global research aims for the study of cost and value in health professions education: A Delphi study of international experts.
Saved in:
| Title: | Global research aims for the study of cost and value in health professions education: A Delphi study of international experts. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Tolsgaard, Martin G.1 (AUTHOR) martin.groennebaek.tolsgaard@regionh.dk, Nayahangan, Leizl Joy1 (AUTHOR), Cook, David A.2 (AUTHOR), Madsen, Gorm Roager3 (AUTHOR), Brydges, Ryan4 (AUTHOR), van Schalkwyk, Susan5 (AUTHOR), de Carvalho Filho, Marco A.6 (AUTHOR), You, Michelle You7 (AUTHOR), Cleland, Jennifer8 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Medical Teacher. Nov2025, Vol. 47 Issue 11, p1752-1760. 9p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Medical education, *Philosophy of education, *Interprofessional relations, *Qualitative research, *Cost benefit analysis, *Education research, *International relations, *Research, *Delphi method, Consensus (Social sciences), Medical personnel, Cluster analysis (Statistics), Descriptive statistics, Thematic analysis, Data analysis software, Health care teams |
| Abstract: | Background: Health professions educators constantly make difficult choices about the allocation of finite resources. However, there is limited sound research available to guide their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by establishing international consensus on research aims, considering diverse economic and cultural contexts. Methods: The authors conducted a three-round Delphi study, engaging an international panel of 73 experts in education research. Panelists were asked to identify (round 1), rank (round 2), and revise (round 3) research aims important for the study of cost and value in medical education. Round 3 results were discussed by an international steering group of nine medical education scientists actively involved in cost and value research, who finalized a list of 20 research aims. Steering group narratives were analyzed to identify additional conceptual insights. Results: From 597 research aims suggested in round 1, 20 research aims were identified after steering group discussion. These were clustered into three categories: (1) funding mechanisms for medical education (e.g. financial policies, cost-effectiveness, and equity impacts); (2) cost and outcomes, e.g. how costs in health professions education relate to concrete outcomes; and (3) economic evaluation of teaching, assessment, and training approaches; e.g. designing and applying formal economic evaluation methods. Steering group discussions noted the limited integration of economic theories into medical education research and the need for foundational studies beyond immediate, practical priorities. They further noted lack of consensus on definitions of cost and value, and appropriate methodologies; underutilization of accepted health economics approaches; and infrequent interdisciplinary collaborations. These collectively act as barriers to advancing the field. Conclusion: The field of cost and value in health professions education remains theoretically and empirically underdeveloped. The research aims identified herein provide a strategic framework for addressing cost and value comprehensively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Teacher is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd 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 |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Health professions educators constantly make difficult choices about the allocation of finite resources. However, there is limited sound research available to guide their decision-making. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by establishing international consensus on research aims, considering diverse economic and cultural contexts. Methods: The authors conducted a three-round Delphi study, engaging an international panel of 73 experts in education research. Panelists were asked to identify (round 1), rank (round 2), and revise (round 3) research aims important for the study of cost and value in medical education. Round 3 results were discussed by an international steering group of nine medical education scientists actively involved in cost and value research, who finalized a list of 20 research aims. Steering group narratives were analyzed to identify additional conceptual insights. Results: From 597 research aims suggested in round 1, 20 research aims were identified after steering group discussion. These were clustered into three categories: (1) funding mechanisms for medical education (e.g. financial policies, cost-effectiveness, and equity impacts); (2) cost and outcomes, e.g. how costs in health professions education relate to concrete outcomes; and (3) economic evaluation of teaching, assessment, and training approaches; e.g. designing and applying formal economic evaluation methods. Steering group discussions noted the limited integration of economic theories into medical education research and the need for foundational studies beyond immediate, practical priorities. They further noted lack of consensus on definitions of cost and value, and appropriate methodologies; underutilization of accepted health economics approaches; and infrequent interdisciplinary collaborations. These collectively act as barriers to advancing the field. Conclusion: The field of cost and value in health professions education remains theoretically and empirically underdeveloped. The research aims identified herein provide a strategic framework for addressing cost and value comprehensively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0142159X |
| DOI: | 10.1080/0142159X.2025.2501254 |
