What makes an article a must read in medical education?

被引：1

作者：

Nakhostin-Ansari, Amin ^{[1
]}

Mirabal, Susan C. ^{[2
]}

Mendes, Thiago Bosco ^{[3
]}

Ma, Yuxing Emily ^{[2
]}

Saldanha Neves Horta Lima, Carolina ^{[4
]}

Chapla, Kavita ^{[5
]}

Reynolds, Stasia ^{[6
]}

Oswalt, Hannah ^{[7
]}

Wright, Scott M. ^{[2
,6
]}

Tackett, Sean ^{[2
,6
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Tehran Med Sci, Neurosci Inst, Sports Med Res Ctr, Tehran, Iran

[2] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD USA

[3] Univ Pittsburgh Med Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA USA

[4] Univ Sao Paulo, Sch Med, Sao Paulo, Brazil

[5] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA USA

[6] Johns Hopkins Bayview Med Ctr, Baltimore, MD USA

[7] Edward Via Coll Osteopath Med, Spartanburg, SC USA

来源：

BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION | 2024年 / 24卷 / 01期

关键词：

Education; Medical; Information dissemination; Journal article; QUALITY;

D O I：

10.1186/s12909-024-05564-2

中图分类号：

G40 [教育学];

学科分类号：

040101 ; 120403 ;

摘要：

Background The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. Methods Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. Results Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. Conclusions Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

引用

页数：7

共 36 条

[1] The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship [J].