Twelve tips for using rapid research methods in health professions education

被引:0
作者
Sandars, John [1 ]
Brown, Jeremy [1 ]
机构
[1] Edge Hill Univ, Fac Hlth Social Care & Med, St Helens Rd, Ormskirk L39 4QP, England
关键词
Medical education; rapid research; methodology; literature reviews; qualitative research; MEDICAL-EDUCATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REVIEWS; PATIENT;
D O I
10.1080/0142159X.2024.2339415
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Information may be required within a short time-frame for making decisions about programmes and interventions in health professions education. Rapid research methods have been increasingly used in healthcare, especially for qualitative research studies and literature reviews. An essential aspect of using rapid research methods is pragmatism, in which there is a balance between the constraints of the short time frame (typically less than 3 months), the available resources, and the rigour for an appropriate standard of quality. Achieving this balance requires careful attention to the design of the research, including clarification of the decision-maker's information needs and the use of rapid methods for literature review, selection of participants, and data collection and analysis. The intention of the article is to provide a practical guide for how rapid research methods for qualitative research studies and literature reviews can be adapted for health professions education.
引用
收藏
页码:1632 / 1638
页数:7
相关论文
共 53 条
  • [1] Althaus C., 2022, The Australian Policy Handbook: A Practical Guide to the Policymaking Process, V7th, DOI [10.4324/9781003351993, DOI 10.4324/9781003351993]
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2017, Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide
  • [3] Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87
    Artino, Anthony R., Jr.
    La Rochelle, Jeffrey S.
    Dezee, Kent J.
    Gehlbach, Hunter
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2014, 36 (06) : 463 - 474
  • [4] Bargate K., 2014, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, V5, P11, DOI [DOI 10.5901/MJSS.2014.VNP, 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p11, DOI 10.5901/MJSS.2014.V5N20P11]
  • [5] Bootstrap inference for multiple imputation under uncongeniality and misspecification
    Bartlett, Jonathan W.
    Hughes, Rachael A.
    [J]. STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2020, 29 (12) : 3533 - 3546
  • [6] Solutions, enablers and barriers to online learning in clinical medical education during the first year of the Covid19 pandemic: A rapid review
    Bastos, Rodrigo Almeida
    Carvalho, Danielle Rachel dos Santos
    Brandao, Carolina Felipe Soares
    Bergamasco, Ellen Cristina
    Sandars, John
    Cecilio-Fernandes, Dario
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2022, 44 (02) : 187 - 195
  • [7] Beebe J., 2014, RAPID QUALITATIVE IN, Vsecond
  • [8] Bell E., 2009, Research for Health Policy
  • [9] Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation?
    Birt, Linda
    Scott, Suzanne
    Cavers, Debbie
    Campbell, Christine
    Walter, Fiona
    [J]. QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2016, 26 (13) : 1802 - 1811
  • [10] How team clinical reasoning occurs on ward rounds: Implications for learning
    Choi, Justin J.
    Contractor, Jigar H.
    Patel, Vimla L.
    Shapiro, Martin F.
    [J]. CLINICAL TEACHER, 2023, 20 (04)