Dataset Information

A method for the madness: An international survey of health professions education authors' journal choice.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Scholarship is a key activity in health professions education (HPE). When disseminating scholarly work, how one selects the journal to which they submit is often argued to be a key determinant of subsequent success. To draw more evidence-based recommendations in this regard, we surveyed successful scholars working in HPE regarding their perspectives and experiences with journal selection.

Methods

We conducted an international survey of HPE scholars, investigating their decisions regarding journal choice. Corresponding authors were identified from a sample of 4000 papers published in 2019 and 2020. They were invited via email with up to four reminders. We describe their experience and use principle component and regression analyses to identify factors associated with successful acceptance.

Results

In total, 863 responses were received (24.7% response rate), 691 of which were included in our analyses. Two thirds of respondents had their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal with revisions required in 98% of cases. We identified six priority factors when choosing journals. In descending order of importance, they were: fit, impact, editorial reputation, speed of dissemination, breadth of dissemination, and guidance from others. Authors who prioritised fit higher and who selected a journal earlier were more likely to have their manuscripts accepted at their first-choice journal.

Discussion

Based on our results we make three recommendations for authors when writing manuscripts: do not be disheartened by a revise decision, consider journal choice early in the research process, and use the fit between your manuscript and the journal as the main factor driving journal choice.

SUBMITTER: Rees EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9240136 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMicrolearning, the acquisition of knowledge or skills in the form of small units, is endorsed by health professions educators as a means of facilitating student learning, training, and continuing education, but it is difficult to define in terms of its features and outcomes.ObjectiveThis review aimed to conduct a systematic search of the literature on microlearning in health professions education to identify key concepts, characterize microlearning as an educational strategy, and evaluate pedagogical outcomes experienced by health professions students.MethodsA scoping review was performed using the bibliographic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Education Full Text (HW Wilson), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. A combination of keywords and subject headings related to microlearning, electronic learning, or just-in-time learning combined with health professions education was used. No date limits were placed on the search, but inclusion was limited to materials published in English. Pedagogical outcomes were evaluated according to the 4-level Kirkpatrick model.ResultsA total of 3096 references were retrieved, of which 17 articles were selected after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles that met the criteria were published between 2011 and 2018, and their authors were from a range of countries, including the United States, China, India, Australia, Canada, Iran, Netherlands, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The 17 studies reviewed included various health-related disciplines, such as medicine, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, and allied health. Although microlearning appeared in a variety of subject areas, different technologies, such as podcast, short messaging service, microblogging, and social networking service, were also used. On the basis of Buchem and Hamelmann's 10 microlearning concepts, each study satisfied at least 40% of the characteristics, whereas all studies featured concepts of maximum time spent less than 15 min as well as content aggregation. According to our assessment of each article using the Kirkpatrick model, 94% (16/17) assessed student reactions to the microlearning (level 1), 82% (14/17) evaluated knowledge or skill acquisition (level 2), 29% (5/17) measured the effect of the microlearning on student behavior (level 3), and no studies were found at the highest level.ConclusionsMicrolearning as an educational strategy has demonstrated a positive effect on the knowledge and confidence of health professions students in performing procedures, retaining knowledge, studying, and engaging in collaborative learning. However, downsides to microlearning include pedagogical discomfort, technology inequalities, and privacy concerns. Future research should look at higher-level outcomes, including benefits to patients or practice changes. The findings of this scoping review will inform education researchers, faculty, and academic administrators on the application of microlearning, pinpoint gaps in the literature, and help identify opportunities for instructional designers and subject matter experts to improve course content in didactic and clinical settings.

Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.

Project description:Importance:Researchers have published surveys on health professionals' perceptions of the possible association between climate change and health (climate-health) and assessed climate-health or planetary health curricula in medical schools. However, curricula on climate-health are still lacking and gaps in knowledge persist. Objective:To understand the state of climate-health curricula among health professions institutions internationally. Design, Setting, and Participants:A survey of 160 institutional members of the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education, which includes international health professions schools and programs, was conducted from August 3, 2017, to March 1, 2018. The survey, hosted by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, used an online survey tool for data collection. Main Outcomes and Measures:The survey assessed climate-health curricular offerings across health professions institutions internationally, including existing climate-health educational offerings, method of teaching climate-health education, whether institutions are considering adding climate-health education, whether institutions received a positive response to adding climate-health curricula and/or encountered challenges in adding curricula, and opportunities to advance climate-health education. Results:Overall response rate to the survey was 53%, with 84 of 160 institutional responses collected; 59 of the responses (70%) were from schools/programs of public health, health sciences, or health professions; 15 (18%) were from medicine; 9 (11%) were from nursing; and 1 (1%) was from another type of health profession institution. Among respondents, 53 (63%) institutions offer climate-health education, most commonly as part of a required core course (41 [76%]). Sixty-one of 82 respondents (74%) reported that climate-health offerings are under discussion to add, 42 of 59 respondents (71%) encountered some challenges trying to institute the curriculum, and most respondents have received a positive response to adding content, mainly from students (39 of 58 [67%]), faculty (35 of 58 [60%]), and administration (23 of 58 [40%]). Conclusions and Relevance:Current climate-health educational offerings appear to vary considerably among health professions institutions. Students, faculty, and administration are important groups to engage when instituting curricula, and awareness, support, and resources may be able to assist in this effort.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a shortage of health care professionals competent in diabetes management worldwide. Digital education is increasingly used in educating health professionals on diabetes. Digital diabetes self-management education for patients has been shown to improve patients' knowledge and outcomes. However, the effectiveness of digital education on diabetes management for health care professionals is still unknown.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and economic impact of digital education in improving health care professionals' knowledge, skills, attitudes, satisfaction, and competencies. We also assessed its impact on patient outcomes and health care professionals' behavior.MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of digitalized diabetes management education for health care professionals pre- and postregistration. Publications from 1990 to 2017 were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, and Web of Science. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors.ResultsA total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of digital education modality, comparators, outcome measures, and intervention duration. Most studies comparing digital or blended education to traditional education reported significantly higher knowledge and skills scores in the intervention group. There was little or no between-group difference in patient outcomes or economic impact. Most studies were judged at a high or unclear risk of bias.ConclusionsDigital education seems to be more effective than traditional education in improving diabetes management-related knowledge and skills. The paucity and low quality of the available evidence call for urgent and well-designed studies focusing on important outcomes such as health care professionals' behavior, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness as well as its impact in diverse settings, including developing countries.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an important source of information, designed to help clinicians integrate research evidence into their clinical practice. Digital education is increasingly used for clinical practice guideline dissemination and adoption. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in improving the adoption of clinical practice guidelines.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases from January 1990 to September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies in any language evaluating the effectiveness of digital education on clinical practice guidelines compared to other forms of education or no intervention in healthcare professionals. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence.ResultsSeventeen trials involving 2382 participants were included. The included studies were diverse with a largely unclear or high risk of bias. They mostly focused on physicians, evaluated computer-based interventions with limited interactivity and measured participants' knowledge and behaviour. With regard to knowledge, studies comparing the effect of digital education with no intervention showed a moderate, statistically significant difference in favour of digital education intervention (SMD?=?0.85, 95% CI 0.16, 1.54; I2 =?83%, n =?3, moderate quality of evidence). Studies comparing the effect of digital education with traditional learning on knowledge showed a small, statistically non-significant difference in favour of digital education (SMD?=?0.23, 95% CI -?0.12, 0.59; I2 =?34%, n =?3, moderate quality of evidence). Three studies measured participants' skills and reported mixed results. Of four studies measuring satisfaction, three studies favoured digital education over traditional learning. Of nine studies evaluating healthcare professionals' behaviour change, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education intervention to no intervention reported improvement in the intervention group. Of three studies reporting patient outcomes, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education games to non-interactive online resources reported modest improvement in the intervention group. The quality of evidence for outcomes other than knowledge was mostly judged as low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency.ConclusionsHealth professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines is at least as effective as traditional learning and more effective than no intervention in terms of knowledge. Most studies report little or no difference in healthcare professionals' behaviours and patient outcomes. The only intervention shown to improve healthcare professionals' behaviour and modestly patient outcomes was email-delivered, spaced education. Future research should evaluate interactive, simulation-based and spaced forms of digital education and report on outcomes such as skills, behaviour, patient outcomes and cost.

Project description:Background The articulation of learning goals, processes and outcomes related to health humanities teaching currently lacks comparability of curricula and outcomes, and requires synthesis to provide a basis for developing a curriculum and evaluation framework for health humanities teaching and learning. This scoping review sought to answer how and why the health humanities are used in health professions education. It also sought to explore how health humanities curricula are evaluated and whether the programme evaluation aligns with the desired learning outcomes. Methods A focused scoping review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies that included the influence of integrated health humanities curricula in pre-registration health professions education with programme evaluate of outcomes was completed. Studies of students not enrolled in a pre-registration course, with only ad-hoc health humanities learning experiences that were not assessed or evaluated were excluded. Four databases were searched (CINAHL), (ERIC), PubMed, and Medline. Results The search over a 5 year period, identified 8621 publications. Title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening, resulted in 24 articles selected for inclusion. Learning outcomes, learning activities and evaluation data were extracted from each included publication. Discussion Reported health humanities curricula focused on developing students’ capacity for perspective, reflexivity, self- reflection and person-centred approaches to communication. However, the learning outcomes were not consistently described, identifying a limited capacity to compare health humanities curricula across programmes. A set of clearly stated generic capabilities or outcomes from learning in health humanities would be a helpful next step for benchmarking, clarification and comparison of evaluation strategy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-021-03002-1.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is a worldwide shortage of health workers, and this issue requires innovative education solutions. Serious gaming and gamification education have the potential to provide a quality, cost-effective, novel approach that is flexible, portable, and enjoyable and allow interaction with tutors and peers. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of serious gaming/gamification for health professions education compared with traditional learning, other types of digital education, or other serious gaming/gamification interventions in terms of patient outcomes, knowledge, skills, professional attitudes, and satisfaction (primary outcomes) as well as economic outcomes of education and adverse events (secondary outcomes). METHODS:A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Educational Resources Information Centre, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature was conducted from 1990 to August 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently searched, screened, and assessed the study quality and extracted data. A meta-analysis was not deemed appropriate due to the heterogeneity of populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes. Therefore, a narrative synthesis is presented. RESULTS:A total of 27 RCTs and 3 cluster RCTs with 3634 participants were included. Two studies evaluated gamification interventions, and the remaining evaluated serious gaming interventions. One study reported a small statistically significant difference between serious gaming and digital education of primary care physicians in the time to control blood pressure in a subgroup of their patients already taking antihypertensive medications. There was evidence of a moderate-to-large magnitude of effect from five studies evaluating individually delivered interventions for objectively measured knowledge compared with traditional learning. There was also evidence of a small-to-large magnitude of effect from 10 studies for improved skills compared with traditional learning. Two and four studies suggested equivalence between interventions and controls for knowledge and skills, respectively. Evidence suggested that serious gaming was at least as effective as other digital education modalities for these outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether one type of serious gaming/gamification intervention is more effective than any other. There was limited evidence for the effects of serious gaming/gamification on professional attitudes. Serious gaming/gamification may improve satisfaction, but the evidence was limited. Evidence was of low or very low quality for all outcomes. Quality of evidence was downgraded due to the imprecision, inconsistency, and limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS:Serious gaming/gamification appears to be at least as effective as controls, and in many studies, more effective for improving knowledge, skills, and satisfaction. However, the available evidence is mostly of low quality and calls for further rigorous, theory-driven research.