Building Community: BMERG Journal Club Review, Medical Education Research Labs

The BMERG blog series on building community continues to grow, with a review of our recent journal club publication. Our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our May journal club on the establishment of medical education research labs.

Paper reviewed: Gisondi, Michael A. et al. The Purpose, Design, and Promise of Medical Education Research Labs. Academic Medicine 97(9):p 1281-1288, September 2022. https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/toc/2022/09000

Since my colleagues launched the Bristol Medical Education Research Group (BMERG), our discussions have focused on creating a productive research environment and increasing the impact of our work as education researchers.

Education research often struggles to get sufficient recognition and lucrative funding compared to basic and clinical sciences research, and many believe basic science research is held in higher esteem and more valued by their institutions.

This paper resonated with members of the BMERG Journal Club, as the authors echo some of these concerns and challenges.  The authors offer their perspective on the significance of medical education research labs and offer a practical roadmap for their establishment and success.

Publication overview

The paper falls under the category of ‘Scholarly Perspective’, and we discussed that it shouldn’t be interpreted as an objective literature review or primary research. The team of authors have presented a collection of case studies from their own experiences, identifying five main medical education research structures:

  • single principal investigator (PI) labs
  • multiple PI labs
  • research centres
  • research collaboratives
  • research networks

The contributors were assembled through existing professional relationships, therefore we questioned whether the categories presented fully reflect the entire range of medical education research structures. However, we accepted this was their ‘Scholarly Perspective’, and we think they effectively conveyed their vision for the future of medical education research, with research labs being central to this.

What is a medical education research lab?

This is an important question! The authors define a lab as,

A distinct team within a department or institution led by single or multiple PIs who focus on specific educational problems

Labs differ from larger research centres, collaboratives, and networks in their scale and scope. The paper provides illustrative case examples to demonstrate how different research structures function in practice, and we found this information both useful and well-presented. As all authors are based in the US, we questioned whether the same structures could be identified in the UK.

What are the benefits of an medical education research lab?

The authors outline several key elements that they consider contribute to the success of medical education research labs:

  1. Lab Identity: The lab should have a focussed line of research that can validate the career path of the PI(s).
  2. Lab designation: The ‘lab’ brand helps signal the importance and legitimacy of the research being conducted, since the lab structure is generally well-understood within medicine. The identity and designation together can attract collaborators, funding, and institutional support.
  3. Infrastructure: Proper infrastructure is crucial; and includes not only physical space and administrative support but also access to necessary research tools and technologies.
  4. Training: Research labs should serve as incubators for new talent. They should provide training and mentorship for students and junior staff, fostering the next generation of medical education researchers.

Did we agree?

Point 2. above on lab designation, sparked our next discussion: do we agree with using the term “lab” in the context of medical education?

We had an interesting debate about the appropriateness of making comparisons to a scientific research environment, and interestingly there was a split of opinion between our qualitative and quantitative colleagues!

We certainly didn’t agree that this nomenclature was essential for research legitimacy (as suggested by the authors), and we descended into brainstorming for other potential terminology for a collection of education researchers; “hub”, “village”, “incubator”, “collective” and even “tribe” were suggested!

Overall reflections

In summary, the authors present a compelling argument for the establishment of research labs as a means to overcome the challenges faced by medical education researchers; providing structured support, fostering collaboration, training new researchers, enhancing research productivity, and elevating the status of medical education research within academic institutions. The paper offers practical insights into the design of these labs, making it a useful resource for anyone involved in medical education research.  It would be interesting to find out more about whether the institutional barriers to establishing such groups are the same in the US as the UK, and within the BMERG Journal Club, we are still on the fence with the word ‘lab’!


More about this blog’s author:

Dr Claire Hudson is a Lecturer on the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway within the Bristol Medical School. Her early research career was in biomedical sciences, but she has now made a transition to pedagogic research. She has a special interest in student autonomy and the use of reflective practice in developing academic skills, as well as exploring MSc student skills development in different demographic groups.


Read more of our journal club reflections:


BMERG News: Reflection on winning an ASME education award

In this blog, Dr Grace Pearson reflects on her recent TASME Mentorship Prize from the Association for the Study of Medical Education. She describes how this award has supported her work in collaboration with the University of Zimbabwe Medical School.

Dr Grace Pearson with Dr Zaranyika, junior doctors and medical students working in the Faculty of Medicine in Harare (March 2024)

I was absolutely delighted to receive the 2024 TASME Mentorship Prize, which I’ve put towards my ongoing collaboration with the University of Zimbabwe Medical School and Parienyatwa Hospital in Harare.

The population of Africa is ageing faster than any other continent, yet teaching in ageing and geriatric medicine is lacking in many countries. In response to the Zimbabwe Healthy Ageing Strategy, and with the mentorship of Dr Trust Zaranyika, we are working to implement innovative undergraduate and postgraduate training in geriatric medicine at UZ, which will equip their workforce with the knowledge and skills required to care for their growing population of older people.

I was privileged to visit Dr Zaranyika, junior doctors working in the Faculty of Medicine, and medical students (all pictured) on a recent scoping visit to Harare in March 2024. I was touched by their warm welcome and invigorated by their keen interest in geriatric medicine.

To ensure that any resources generated are authentic, applicable, and sustainable, I attended ward rounds, clinics, meetings, and teaching to understand when, where, and how training in geriatrics might ‘fit’. It was a pleasure to be part of such a supportive and rich learning environment, where teams regularly meet together to discuss clinical cases, and I was myself reminded of how best to incorporate teaching moments into every day clinical practice.

It was my pleasure to pilot teaching on ‘core’ geriatrics topics, such as frailty, falls, and delirium, and I found it refreshing to revisit my own ‘bread and butter’ from the ground up. I made so many friends in such a short time, and I really can’t wait to return to Harare to develop and implement more teaching.

More about the TASME mentorship award:

The TASME mentorship award provides funding for healthcare professions trainees to travel to meet mentors, to develop a mentoring relationship that will support their professional development as a medical educator. The application is a short self-nomination form, consisting of three questions: 1. Can you tell us about your career as an educator so far? 2. How do you plan to spend the award? 3. How might this impact your career as an educator? The next submission window opens on the 4th January 2025.

More about Dr Grace Pearson (she/her):

Grace is a Clinical Lecturer in Ageing Education at Bristol Medical School, and an Adjunct Lecturer in Geriatric Medicine at the University of Zimbabwe. Since finishing her PhD in the field of undergraduate geriatric medicine education, Grace has been continuing her work to innovate and evaluate ageing education in an equitable partnership between the Global North and Global South. @GraceInvaders

Conference Report: TICC 2024: The Inaugural CTF Conference, 5th April, Bristol

The latest blog is a conference report celebrating the work of clinical teaching fellows across our region. Ed Luff reflects on this event and shares exciting plans for TICC 2025.

On Friday the 5th of April, the University of Bristol, in collaboration with BMERG, hosted TICC 2024: The Inaugural CTF Conference. TICC 2024 provided an opportunity to see and share the valued work of Clinical Teaching Fellows (CTFs) from across the region. Building on the successes of last year’s local CTF Conference for University of Bristol-affiliated CTFs, this year’s expanded meeting had presenters travelling from 10 organisations spanning Southern England, ranging from Surrey to Somerset.

The objectives of the conference were:

These objectives were excellently delivered through a combination of timetabled events on the day. This included two parallel streams of CTF presentations, comprising headline 20-minute showcase presentations, shorter 10-minute oral presentations and 3-minute e-Poster presentations, all with time for Q&A from the audience.

All 22 CTF presentations were extremely well received, and there was excellent engagement and discussion from the audience, highlighting the passion, interest and quality of the work presented. An intuitive electronic platform allowed delegates to provide feedback to presenters, which was shared with them following the conference. This approach to feedback facilitated further development of presentations prior to work being taken onto national or international conferences.

The day also included eight medical education-themed workshops, which attendees were able to choose from, across two parallel streams. These covered topics such as the future of undergraduate medical education, facilitating student-led medical education innovation, sculpting change, demystifying ethics, writing for publication, and the application of qualitative research to medical education. The day also included a showcase workshop presentation titled “From Innovation to Transformative Education”, highlighting how we can sustain and build on novel ideas and implement them into future practice in an educational setting.

One of the other highlights of this year’s expanded interinstitutional conference was a keynote address from Dr Jo Hartland, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Education Director at Bristol Medical School. They presented an account of their work in the field of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion and shared reflections on their medical education journey to date, including their move from clinical work into medical education, policy work, and leadership.

All those involved in teaching or supporting medical students, whether clinical, academic, or administrative, were welcome to attend the conference. The day saw 63 delegates attend from a variety of backgrounds including those in academic and professional support roles, clinical staff, and educational roles.

On the day, the conference had a fantastic atmosphere, with much talk and networking amongst colleagues and peers regarding teaching, collaboration, innovation, and reflections on the past year as CTF. Energy levels were high, and although the programme was busy,  the variety and diversity of presentations, workshops and talks was extremely well received.

Prizes were awarded on the day for the best oral presentation and runner-up, scored on the day by senior academics and the conference committee; best e-poster presentation, voted on by conference delegates; and best social media post, decided by the organising committee. The prize winners can be viewed on the TICC conference 2024 page.

For more information and insight into what happened on the day, search X (formerly Twitter) for #TICC24 to find all the social media posts. If you would like to find out more information about what was happening on the day, or full details of the presentations that were delivered, please do have a look at the conference programme is available here:

We will also be sharing all of the presentations that were delivered at TICC online, so if you couldn’t make it along but would like to review some of the amazing work that was presented, we will add a link to this post and to the TICC tab on the BMERG blog page.

Finally, we are excited to announce that TICC will return next year in a new and updated format! The new and revamped Teaching, Innovation, and Collaboration for CTFs Conference 2025 will take place on Friday 25th of April 2025. So make a note in your diaries, with more information to follow soon, and start sharing your excitement online by using #TICC25.

Hot Topics: Neuroeducation: Realistic or Idealistic?

In this week’s top topic blog, Dr Fiona Holmes explores the challenges and realms of our minds in her blog on neuroeducation.

Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.” – Albert Einstein

I’ve spent most of my career so far as a neuroscientist, but more recently my role and research interests have an education focus. So, in this blog I’m combining both and discussing neuroeducation: the application of neuroscientific evidence to pedagogy to understand and enhance learning.

Since learning happens in the brain, the link between neuroscience research and educational research should be a no-brainer – right? Well, it’s rather complex and controversial and so far, neuroeducation research has not yet revealed a magic strategy to make geniuses of us all – but it’s relatively early days!

The idea of brain-based learning

Caine and Caine (1990)1 proposed the following 12 basic principles, extrapolated from the neuroscience-derived ideas at the time:

  1. The brain processes multiple things in parallel therefore teaching should orchestrate all the dimensions of parallel processing by teaching in complex multi-sensory environments;
  2. Learning engages the entire physiology so teaching must incorporate stress management, nutrition, and exercise;
  3. The search for meaning is innate so teaching should incorporate a stable and rich environment to facilitate this;
  4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning so teaching should incorporate thematic teaching, curriculum integration, and life-relevant approaches to learning;
  5. Emotions are critical to patterning so ensure a supportive emotional environment and co-operative learning;
  6. The brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts (details) and wholes (global concepts) so learning is cumulative and developmental;
  7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception therefore utilise the entire sensory context of the learning through appropriate visual and emotional stimuli;
  8. Learning involves conscious (remembering) and unconscious (priming) processes so incorporate active learning and reflection in teaching;
  9. There are at least two types of memory: spatial memory system (strongest) and rote learning memory, so avoid just fact memorisation;
  10. The brain understands and remembers best when facts and skills are embedded in contextual (spatial) memory therefore use a multisensory experiential learning approach;
  11. Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat so maintain an environment of relaxed alertness;
  12. Each brain is unique and uniquely adaptable therefore use multifaceted teaching to address diversity.

But are these principles really novel and does a neuroscience-focused approach to evidencing, understanding and advancing these ideas provide strategies to improve educational practice?

A key aim for neuroeducation is to work out what happens in the brain when it learns and then how to best stimulate this in an educational environment. It has been shown that neuroeducation research may help inform, refine, select, and support aspects of pedagogy, alongside other methods.

There have been numerous studies over the last 20 years or so which support a neuroeducational strategy, including the identification of brain areas involved in reading – and the proposed neurobiological basis of dyslexia; the neural circuitry of numerosity; the neural substrates of attention, emotion and social cognition, relevant for further understanding of e.g. attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autistic spectrum disorder.

It has potential for neuroprognosis (i.e. predicting educational intervention outcomes); assessing the effect of educational, genetic and/or environmentally induced changes on neurophysiology and cognition; engagement, motivation, and risk to potentiate learning. Furthermore, neuroeducation could influence curriculum design and educational reform.

Neuromyths

However, such principles and popular brain science may over-simplify and over-interpret complex and incomplete neuroscience research and may contribute to the establishment and perpetuation of neuromyths – misconceptions generated by a limited or misunderstanding of data from brain research, albeit based on a kernel of truth, e.g. the learning styles myth2,3.

Despite its widespread acceptance, research fails to support the idea that teaching which aims to fit an apparent learning style enhances learning. So, is ‘a little knowledge a dangerous thing’? There is concern that significant resources may be invested in policies, training, research, and practice based on half-truths. This has emphasised the importance of bidirectional education, mutual cultural understanding and shared experience of each other’s environments between neuroscientists and teachers and students.

Useful advances in the field can come from reciprocal training in relevant knowledge, concepts, and research methods, ensuring robust, relevant and practically applicable research findings through co-constructing research projects; and using neuroscience to distinguish between educational theories rather than drive them. An appreciation of each other’s knowledge and perspectives through co-education and collaboration will facilitate increasingly beneficial outcomes for education and help to bust neuromyths.

Neuroeducation-informed practice

It will come as no big surprise that we should be designing teaching that engages mental activities that enhance the acquisition, processing, storing and use of knowledge in a diversity of learners, as well as promoting meta-cognition – thinking about thinking. So… we must be aware of cognitive diversity and use a variety of teaching methods to accommodate and engage all our students. Lets think about afew ideas and examples:

Active experiences linked to positive emotions are critical for learning: Provide student-centred, active and adaptive learning-by-doing memorable experiences such as problem-based, project-based and co-operative in a supportive environment. Simulation and gamification places students in an environment where they can experience how to be, how to do, and has been shown to increase concentration and reduce tension.  Get students to use the learning at different times in different contexts. Include repetition, retrieval, and association tasks to enhance efficient memory systems.

Memory acquisition relies on attention: Engage and motivate students by starting a session with something provocative and relevant to contextualise the teaching and learning process. It could be an anecdote, an image or question that affects and connects with the lives and interests of your students. This will enable reflective discussion and critical analysis to help them acquire knowledge through their own conclusions.

Encourage students to be active in their own learning journey: This can be achieved through reflection, problem-solving and critical thinking as well as providing them with specific, meaningful, actionable, and timely feedback.

Implement mental and/or physical activities at the beginning of a session: A puzzle or meditation can aid concentration and therefore assimilation of knowledge. Include games, fun, social interaction, and reward to foster interest and pleasure, ensuring the learning objective is clear so that the students will be able to appropriate and transform the acquired knowledge.

Educational Neurotechnology: Brain scan to lesson plan

Exciting advances in the technologies to study the neurophysiology of learning in an education environment are continually developing. This will be the topic of my next blog.

Further reading:

  1. Caine R and Caine G (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning and teaching. Education Leader 48(2): 66-71.
  2. Howard-Jones P A (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nat Rev Neuro 15: 817-24.
  3. Newton P M et al (2021). The learning style neuromyth is still thriving in medical education. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15: 1-5.

Publication announcement: When I say … positionality

Congratulations to our BMERG and TLHP colleague Sarah Mclaughlin on her latest publication in the Journal Medical Education this week all about positionality in medical education research. Through her ‘when I say’ article she encourages “medical education researchers to reflect upon who they are and how they impact their research project during its various stages. Through engaging reflexively with their positionality, researchers can work towards a transparent, trustworthy and credible approach to qualitative medical education research.”

Read the article in Medical Education: Mclaughlin S. When I say … positionality. Med Educ. 2024; 1-2. doi:10.1111/medu.15427

Publishing in Medical Education: Is it all about the metrics?

Sarah Allsop

In the latest publishing blog, BMERG blog editor Dr Sarah Allsop explores what research metrics are and if these are the only way for medical educators to show their impact.

Photo by Moritz Mentges on Unsplash

We are often told that we need to publish, we need to think about journal metrics, we need to build our research profile; but what do these things actually mean and they the best way for education researchers to show and share their impact?

Lets start by taking a look at the term ‘research metrics’.

Research metrics (or indicators) are numerical markers designed to help evaluate research outputs. There are a number of different metrics in use, considered at different levels depending on whether they are indicators about an article, a journal or the author. Some of the most common metrics are citation counts, altmetrics, h-index and journal impact factors.

Citation counts: This is an article metric and is a simple count of the number of times an article has been cited in others work. It is a very commonly used metric aiming to quantitatively measure the impact and influence of a publication.

Altmetrics: Short for alternative metrics, this is an article metric, but in contrast to the traditional citation count includes tracking the online attention and engagement received by research outputs, including social media mentions, downloads, views, and media coverage. This is often displayed as a colourful ‘donut’. Altmetrics therefore potentially offer a broader perspective on the impact and reach of research beyond citations. Tools like Altmetric Explorer can help you to track this type of metric.

H-index: This is one of the most commonly used author metric proposed as a way to measure both the quantity (number of publications) and the quality (number of citations) of an author’s work. An author has an h-index of h, if h of their publications have been cited at least h times each, for example, an h-index of 5, means at least 5 papers that have been cited at least 5 times each.

Journal Impact Factors: The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is perhaps the most commonly used journal metric, and assesses the average number of citations received by articles published in a specific journal within a particular timeframe. Of note whilst it is an indicator of reach and popularity, it has been criticised as a measure of prestige rather than necessarily quality [1].

So, are there other ways to show impact?

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that research metrics are important, you can also highlight reach, value and impact of your work in other ways. This can range widely and can also incorporate a more qualitative approach to impact evidence sharing your own story, plus testimonials from others. Examples include:

Using case studies: Do you have examples of where you have advised others on their practice or shared techniques or guidance with other institutions? Use these as case studies of external impact of your expertise.

Exploring networks: Think big – are you involved with working with other associations, companies or professional bodies? Don’t forget to highlight and share your work in this way and the extended reach these activities might have. Think local – are you involved with local mentoring schemes or other programmes of work that support others to achieve. Not all examples have to be national or international to show profound impact for those around you.

Using multimedia: Are there other ways you can be communicating your work that might raise awareness and increase the audience for your work. You could consider a blog, writing for a website, making YouTube videos, podcasts or designing infographics of your work. Thinking outside the box can have amazing consequences, perhaps leading to invitations to speak at new places due to sharing your work more innovatively and visibly.

Which leads me on to my one really important point – in order to show your impact, you need to think about your visibility. Are you visible on your institution’s profile pages? Do you have professional social media accounts or ResearchGate, Google Scholar or LinkedIn profiles? Consideration for how you build your profile using these tools will allow you to highlight your achievements and share your resources to a potentially wider audience. Watch out for a new blog coming soon on maximising your external profile.

Read more about research metrics:

Building Community: BMERG Journal Club Review, Playful Learning

The BMERG blog series on building community continues to grow, with our journal club meeting bi-monthly. This month our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our March journal club on Playful Learning.

Paper reviewed: Macdonald I, Malone E, Firth R. How can scientists and designers find ways of working together? A case study of playful learning to co-design visual interpretations of immunology concepts. Studies in Higher Education. 2022;47(9):1980-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.2020745

I was intrigued by this paper for quite simple reasons; the terms ‘playful learning’ and ‘co-design’ grabbed my attention, as well as the reference to ‘scientists’. Although I am also an educator, I am a scientist at heart. Before everyone with a clinical background switches off, the paper actually discusses concepts that could apply to all disciplines, and it certainly provoked some fruitful discussion within our group.  

At the University of Bristol, we design our academic programmes to align with a Curriculum Framework, which includes a set of six interconnected dimensions that convey the educational aspirations of the University. Ideas of how to embed these dimensions within our teaching are always welcome, and this paper aligned with at least two of these dimensions: Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary (allowing students to engage beyond their discipline)and Inspiring and innovative (challenging, authentic and collaborative learning). So, I read this paper hoping to find some inspiration.

What was the research?

In summary, the authors designed an interdisciplinary activity with Biological Science students and Product Design students, aiming to communicate an immunology concept (for example allergies, vaccination or transplantation) using digital storytelling. Initially, the scientists pitched their immunology concepts to the designers, and then both sets of students took part in regular co-design workshops held in the design studios to create their final products. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with the students and collected Likert questionnaire data, to explore their “preconceptions, experience and future learnings of working in interdisciplinary groups”, analysed using thematic analysis.

What were the findings?

Four themes emerged from their research, summarised below:

1. The influence of environment –Being in the design studio fostered creativity in the Science students and developed different ways of thinking.

2. Playfulness as a creative approach –Freedom from assessment (this activity was outside of the curriculum) allowed for risk taking.

3. Storytelling as a means of expression –Translating information in a visual form enhanced understanding of the immunology material.

4. Recognition of the value of Interdisciplinary working – Relevance to authentic working relationships, exploiting individual strengths.

What did we think?

Limitations of the study

We did have some concerns about the study, such as not being explicit about the objectives and the possibility of confirmation bias. At the end of the introduction the authors state “This study aimed to use interdisciplinary co-design workshops to create opportunities for bringing scientists and designers to work together”; this may have been the purpose of the learning activity, but this didn’t explain the objectives of their research. What did they want to find out?

We discussed the limitations of case studies, however, we agreed that this type of study is useful to disseminate practice and generate ideas, provided the researchers are transparent about the wider relevance. We noted that the findings closely matched the themes presented in their introduction, thereby reconfirming previous assumptions rather than generating novel data, which led us to question the depth of the thematic analysis. This confirmation bias could also have arisen due to the nature of the sample; this was a voluntary task, and it is likely that the participating students were highly motivated. 

How could this be relevant to our own practice?

We all agreed that this was an interesting learning experience for the students, and I love hearing about novel ideas for communicating complex scientific concepts. Often, we retain and understand information with the use of a good metaphor, so perhaps we should all integrate more storytelling into our teaching!

However, since this activity was purely extra-curricular, how relevant is it? Do we really have the time/scope to create these opportunities ‘just for fun’? Creating a genuine interdisciplinary task within a curriculum seems challenging, with potential inter-Programme/School/Faculty logistics to navigate. Some of these perceived obstacles arise from imagining a summative task, however we all agreed that creating formative interdisciplinary tasks would be simpler; and in agreement with the authors, would allow students the freedom to experiment and be ‘playful’, stepping out of their comfort zones without being assessed. A great example of this freedom is the ‘creative piece’ produced by our medical students during year 1 Foundations of Medicine. Students are required to take part, but not awarded an explicit grade, which enables risk taking.

Overall reflections

This paper certainly sparked some great discussion about interdisciplinary and group working (clinical perfusion and medical students, medical and nursing students…), but how do we measure the benefit of such collaborations? At BMERG, our focus is turning these ideas into opportunities for research, so watch this space!


Read more of our journal club reflections:


Publishing in Medical Education: Conference Series – Writing effective conference abstracts

Building on our previous BMERG Publishing in Medical Education blogs, in this post Dr Sally Dowling introduces our Writing for Publication Conference Series. Here she talks about a different sort of writing and dissemination of your work – responding to calls for conference presentations and posters.

Image: The Climate Reality Project/Unsplash

Why should you present your work at academic conferences?

Academics choose to present their work at conferences and meetings for a range of reasons. It’s an important part of the dissemination of finished research projects, but it can also be an opportunity to gain feedback on ‘work in progress’, as well as to hear from and meet others in your field and those whose work may be related to yours.

If you are an early career researcher it can be a good way to build connections and network. If you are able to obtain funding to attend a conference it can be a good way to have some ‘time-out’ from everyday pressures to think about, and discuss, your work. You may also get the opportunity to visit some interesting places! Post-covid, some conferences now offer hybrid attendance and others have remained online.

What’s the difference between a paper presentation and a poster?

A paper presentation, sometimes called an oral presentation (or if you are the main speaker, a ‘keynote’ presentation) is where someone delivers a talk to an audience. In some disciplines this might mean literally reading a paper (similar to a journal article); in others it is more usual to deliver a talk accompanied by a slide presentation.

This may be to a large lecture hall full of people or to a smaller audience in parallel sessions – depending on the type and structure of the conference. Length of presentations varies and may or may not include time for questions. Sometimes all presenters in a session will give their presentations and questions will follow, addressed to the speakers as a panel.

Conference posters are usually displayed for the duration of the conference – they are large (often A1 or A0) posters presenting reports of a research project or other work, usually including words and images. Recently the use of electronic posters is also becoming more common, either made available to view online or physically on large screens at the conference venue.

The aim is to give conference attendees the chance to find out about a range of relevant work and, usually, to ask questions of the researcher or representative of the research team. Some conferences expect poster presenters to stand with their posters at specific times (coffee breaks or lunchtimes, or an early evening session, for example) in order to ‘talk to’ their poster if required.

What is a ‘call for papers’?

Many conferences publish a ‘call for papers/posters’ well in advance of the conference. These will usually be on the websites of relevant organisations (such as AMEE or ASME). You can keep an eye out and find out what time of year these usually appear by visiting our BMERG Abstract Calls! page.

When you look at the call there will be important information to note:

  • Submission format: Some conferences will want you to submit your abstract as an attachment – others will use an online platform, which may require you to register.
  • Deadline: There will usually be a strictly-enforced deadline.
  • Word count: This is usually very specific and may be constrained by allowances of online text boxes.
  • Structure: It is important to note whether the abstract should be structured or unstructured. If they require that the abstract is structured it will often follow a Background, Aim, Methods, Results, Conclusions format (see figure 1 below) – if there are different headings to be used make sure you are aware of this.
  • References: Instructions may also specify whether or not you can use references and, if so, may give a limit (usually a small number).
  • Themes and Streams: Details should be on the conference website of themed conference streams or specific types of sessions you can submit to; make sure you are clear about these and indicate which you prefer if asked.
  • Presentation format: You may be asked if you are submitting for an oral or a poster presentation, and if there is more than one author you will usually be asked to indicate who will be the presenter.
Example of conventional headings for a structured abstract
HeadingContent
BackgroundSpecify the nature and size of the problem; outline its importance to practice, and the gap that needs to be addressed. This section should emphasise the relevance and significance of the issue to the conference delegates and should embrace a relevant theme
AimSpecify this clearly and simply, including study design/approach
MethodsSample
Data collection Data analysis Ethical issues
Results/ FindingsReport this clearly and succinctly to provide the reader with a fair impression of the data
ConclusionIt is important to be specific and produce a balanced conclusion based on the results and how it captures the selected conference theme
Figure 1: Example of conventional headings for a structured abstract. From Albarran and Dowling (2017, p.325).

What should I put in my abstract?

Writing a good abstract will maximise your chances of acceptance. It’s also a way for people to read about your project in advance, or after the conference. Some conferences publish abstracts after the event; sometimes as a supplement to a journal connected to the conference.

What you say in your abstract will act as a ‘hook’ to bring people to your presentation or poster, or to want to contact you to find out more about your work. Use an engaging and academically persuasive tone, take time to refine what you have written and proof-read carefully before submission. Asking a critical friend to read through your abstract can be helpful.

Guidance on how to format your abstract
Guideline
Name of lead presenter and contact detailsYou will be required to provide details of your place of work and qualifications
Name of authors, titles and contact detailsObtain full addresses, titles, professional qualifications and contact details including email address
TitleThis should be kept to 12 words or less. If reporting the results of a study, audit or service improvement, it is good practice to include methodology in the title. A good title should provoke interest, curiosity and relate to the chosen theme
HeadingsEmploy the headings as suggested and in the order recommended
Word limitThis will range between 200–300 words maximum—abbreviations are often discouraged, check this out
Key termsYou may be invited to provide 4–6 search terms that embrace the content of your abstract
Font size and typeThis will normally be prescribed—ensure you follow the recommendations.
Referencing style and numberConfirm the referencing style permitted prior to drafting the abstract, and how many are allowed; some will limit the number to a maximum of three
Conflicts of interestIf you have any conflicts of interest, declare these
FundingSome scientific committees expect you to state whether your project was externally funded; if it has, confirm this
Permission to publish your abstractShould you be accepted to present, the abstract may be published as part of conference proceedings. Note that you may not have the opportunity to revise
AbbreviationsGenerally these are discouraged, so it is sensible to check the guidelines; it is likely that only universally accepted abbreviations may be permitted
Figure 2. Guidance on how to format your abstract. Table adapted from Albarran and Dowling (2017, p.326).

What happens to my abstract after submission?

Most conferences will have a conference committee who will review abstracts received before the deadline (so this is a form of peer review). Depending on the conference preparation timeline, it can take some time to hear, so be patient! Some conferences will give a date on their webpages, telling you when you will hear from them; others don’t do this. Wait to hear and then start preparing for your conference!

The next blog in this series coming soon: Tips on how to produce your conference poster

Further reading:

Albarran, J. & Dowling, S., 2017, Writing an effective conference abstract British Journal of Cardiac Nursing. 12, 7, pp. 324-328

Higgins, M., Eogan, M., O’Donoghue K., Russell, N. (2013) How to write an abstract that will be accepted. BMJ, 346: 2974 doi:10.1136/bmj.f2974 

Pieper, P. (2014) Writing Your Journal or Conference Abstract. Journal of Pediatric Surgical Nursing. 3(2), pp. 47-50


More about this blog’s author

Sally is a Lecturer at Bristol Medical School, working both for the Health Professions Education programme and as Co-Director of the MSc Reproduction and Development. She also runs a series of writing for publication workshops (see programme here) for the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Bristol.


Check out our previous Publishing in Medical Education Posts


BMERG News: Award Win for one of our Bristol Medical Education Researchers!

We are hugely pleased to share another amazing success for the fantastic Dr Grace Pearson, who is this year’s winner of the Association for the Study of Medical Education Trainees TASME Mentorship Prize.

The TASME Mentorship Prize is an individual award that provides resources for early career health professions educators to develop a mentorship relationship that will support their development as an educator.

Grace is this year’s winner of this prestigious award with her submission ‘Improving the care of older people in Zimbabwe through undergraduate and postgraduate teaching innovation.’ Grace shares that,

“this prize will help towards work with clinicians at the University of Zimbabwe Medical School, strengthening collaborative efforts to innovate teaching in geriatric medicine.”

Congratulations Grace, we look forward to hearing all about this exciting work in the future.

Read more about this award at www.asme.org.uk/news/tasme-mentorship-prize-2024-winner/

Trainees in the Association for the Study of Medical Education (TASME) is a career group of ASME. TASME’s mission is to foster interest and support development in medical education amongst early career doctors (up to 5 years post foundation training) – and early career allied healthcare professionals (up to 7 years post graduation). 


Read more about Grace’s work on the BMERG profiles page and follow her on X @GraceInvaders


BMERG Work: New Educator Profile

This month’s highlighted Educator Profile is Dr Ed Luff

Ed is an Emergency Medical Doctor and Bristol Medical School graduate. His role is currently split between working as a Clinical Lecturer at Bristol Medical School and Speciality Teaching Fellow and Tutor at South Bristol Academy, based in the Bristol Royal Infirmary.

He is also finishing his MSc dissertation exploring students’ experiences and perceptions of using simulation as a method to teach human factors and non-technical skills, as part of his studies on the Health Professionals Education (TLHP) course.


Read more about Ed and some of our other Bristol Medical School Educators by visiting our: BMERG Educator and Researcher Profile Page