File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Evidence-based medical education - Quo vadis?

TitleEvidence-based medical education - Quo vadis?
Authors
Issue Date2006
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd.
Citation
Journal Of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 2006, v. 12 n. 3, p. 353-364 How to Cite?
AbstractThe evidence base for most educational initiatives, at least until very recently, is largely composed of low-level evidence. Four major barriers underlie this historical observation, namely: (1) perceived ethical and acceptability problems arising from the unequal treatment of learners in experimental designs; (2) limited choice of outcome measures and validated instruments; (3) time and resource constraints; and (4) methodological issues concerning contextual confounding and small sample sizes. We advocate the adoption of a 'balanced scorecard' approach in the evaluation of education interventions that brings together a comprehensive panel of outcomes under one framework. We require a diversity of rigorously applied methods to generate these outcomes, drawing from the quantitative and qualitative disciplines of epidemiology, psychology and economics. We further suggest that the research community discuss and agree on a standardized set of common metrics or benchmarks. We conclude with a case study examining whether a hand-held computer clinical decision support tool improves clerkship learning of evidence-based medicine. The era of Brownian motion in health education research is over. What we demand in terms of burden of proof for educational effectiveness should be no less rigorous than our call for an ever escalating threshold concerning evidence of clinical care. © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/86698
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.053
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.730
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLeung, GMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorJohnston, JMen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T09:20:14Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T09:20:14Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_HK
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 2006, v. 12 n. 3, p. 353-364en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1356-1294en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/86698-
dc.description.abstractThe evidence base for most educational initiatives, at least until very recently, is largely composed of low-level evidence. Four major barriers underlie this historical observation, namely: (1) perceived ethical and acceptability problems arising from the unequal treatment of learners in experimental designs; (2) limited choice of outcome measures and validated instruments; (3) time and resource constraints; and (4) methodological issues concerning contextual confounding and small sample sizes. We advocate the adoption of a 'balanced scorecard' approach in the evaluation of education interventions that brings together a comprehensive panel of outcomes under one framework. We require a diversity of rigorously applied methods to generate these outcomes, drawing from the quantitative and qualitative disciplines of epidemiology, psychology and economics. We further suggest that the research community discuss and agree on a standardized set of common metrics or benchmarks. We conclude with a case study examining whether a hand-held computer clinical decision support tool improves clerkship learning of evidence-based medicine. The era of Brownian motion in health education research is over. What we demand in terms of burden of proof for educational effectiveness should be no less rigorous than our call for an ever escalating threshold concerning evidence of clinical care. © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd.en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practiceen_HK
dc.rightsJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. Copyright © Blackwell Publishing Ltd.en_HK
dc.subject.meshBenchmarking - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshClinical Clerkshipen_HK
dc.subject.meshComputers, Handhelden_HK
dc.subject.meshDecision Support Systems, Clinicalen_HK
dc.subject.meshEducation, Medicalen_HK
dc.subject.meshEvidence-Based Medicine - educationen_HK
dc.subject.meshHong Kongen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshOrganizational Case Studiesen_HK
dc.subject.meshProgram Evaluation - methodsen_HK
dc.subject.meshResearch Designen_HK
dc.titleEvidence-based medical education - Quo vadis?en_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1356-1294&volume=12&issue=3&spage=353&epage=364&date=2006&atitle=Evidence-based+medical+education+-+quo+vadis?en_HK
dc.identifier.emailLeung, GM:gmleung@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailJohnston, JM:jjohnsto@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, GM=rp00460en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityJohnston, JM=rp00375en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00585.xen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid16722922-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33744484270en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros116105en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33744484270&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume12en_HK
dc.identifier.issue3en_HK
dc.identifier.spage353en_HK
dc.identifier.epage364en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000237693900022-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, GM=7007159841en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridJohnston, JM=7403397964en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike663821-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats