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:


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.

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:


Hot Topics in Medical Education Research: Interdisciplinary Medical Education – Learning Better Together

In the second hot topics blog of 2024, Fiona Holmes considers the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary learning. The inspiration for this came from teaching Clinical Perfusion Science students (clinical scientists who operate the heart-lung bypass during cardiac surgery) who come from different disciplinary backgrounds (bioscience/bioengineering and nursing/ODP), and who learn together and from each other and work as part of a complex multidisciplinary team.

What is IDL?

The World Health Organisation defines interdisciplinary learning (IDL) as ‘students from two or more professions learning about, from and with each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes’ and has stated that ‘interprofessional education and collaborative practice can play a significant role in mitigating many of the challenges faced by health systems around the world’.

What are the benefits of IDL?

Shared knowledge. Healthcare students face careers in increasingly complex healthcare systems where mutual understanding and integration of complementary expertise, communication, collaboration and decision making is key to comprehensive patient care and best outcomes. Medical issues and clinical situations often require a holistic understanding that goes beyond a single discipline; generalists and specialists need to work together. Practioners can’t know everything about everything!

Widened horizons. IDL can help students appreciate the interconnectedness of various factors important for patient care such as physiological, psychological, and social. IDL can expose students to different knowledge and perspectives such that they can analyse complex cases from different angles and integrate knowledge leading to more effective problem-solving in clinical settings. It can increase the ability to recognise bias, think critically and tolerate ambiguity.

Effective teamwork. IDL develops effective communication, collaboration and teamwork among healthcare professionals, important for delivering comprehensive and coordinated patient care. This can better prepare students for work in diverse healthcare settings and equip them with broader skills, enabling them to be more versatile and adaptable in their careers and enhancing their professional development.

Improved student experience. IDL can improve the student experience; by and large studies have shown that students express higher levels of engagement and satisfaction when exposed to IDL, which can contribute to improved learning outcomes.

How can IDL be implemented?

IDL can be incorporated into medical education in a number of ways, but to be effective it needs to be purposefully integrated into the curriculum and explicit in learning sessions (you can’t just throw students together and expect the learning to happen spontaneously). IDL lends itself to learning opportunities that can be designed to be authentic real-life situations such as:

  • Case-based learning (CBL) – students work together on case studies that require input from various professions to help them understand each other’s roles and contributions to patient care;
  • Simulated scenarios / role playing – students from different professions (or playing the role of different professions) collaborate to address the simulated patient’s needs, honing their teamwork and communication skills in a safe environment as well as understand the perspectives and responsibilities of each profession;
  • Interprofessional clinical experiences – students from various professions complete clinical placements together to expose them to the interprofessional dynamics of healthcare delivery in reality;
  • Team-based learning (e.g. clinical rounds) – students discuss patient cases and treatment plans collaboratively (builds upon CBL);
  • Interprofessional workshops/projects – bring students from various disciplines together to collaborate and develop solutions for healthcare challenges;
  • Reflective practices – such as team debriefing sessions and individual reflective journals to contemplate experiences, challenges, insights and opportunities for improvement, with a focus on the IDL.

What are the challenges of IDL?

Resource implications. Implementing IDL can pose logistical and resourcing (appropriately skilled staff – ideally interprofessional team teaching, time, costs) challenges; it can be difficult to coordinate curricula and schedules to bring different healthcare students together at appropriate time in their educational journey.

Timing. The jury is out as to when is the best time to implement IDL and for how long (e.g., periodic exposure or continuous immersion). Ideally team dynamics need time to develop, so communication becomes more open and collaborative, with trust and appreciation of diversity of knowledge.

Experience levels. While the point of IDL is to bring together diverse students for learning, there may be issues associated with this such as: Learner-level matching (do they have sufficient background knowledge and experience to work together effectively?); differences in learning preferences may be more exaggerated due to prior teaching and learning experiences; epistemics (the disciplinary ideas about what knowledge is and how to use and produce knowledge) and specific manner of communication are part of the culture of particular disciplines that may hinder IDL.

Perceptions and Biases. Perceptual barriers in competence perceptions may lead to a lack of self-confidence or respect for co-learners and personal characteristics such as curiosity, respect, and openness, patience, diligence, and self-regulation have been suggested to be important characteristics for enabling cognitive advancement in IDL.

Measures of impact. Evaluating the effectiveness of IDL can be challenging. Traditional assessment methods may not adequately capture the depth and breadth of knowledge, behaviour and attitudes or ‘interdisciplinary thinking and doing’ – i.e., the capacity to integrate knowledge and ways of thinking and doing across areas of expertise to produce a better outcome than could be achieved otherwise.

Future Research

While the general consensus is that IDL should be an integral part of the curriculum for healthcare students, the importance of IDL is largely based on theory and there remains a lack of large, multi-centre long-term studies. Therefore, currently it is unclear what strategies are best for long-term behaviour change and positive patient outcomes.

Some additional further reading:

Attitudes towards Interprofessional education in the medical curriculum: a systematic review of the literature | BMC Medical Education | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Experiential Learning of Interdisciplinary Care Skills in Surgery Assessed From Student Reflections – ScienceDirect

Interprofessional team-based learning (TBL): how do students engage? | BMC Medical Education | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Interdisciplinary education affects student learning: a focus group study | BMC Medical Education | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Building Community: Enhancing the International Student Experience

In this blog, Dr Liang-Fong Wong shares some key insights into how we foster an inclusive environment for international students within our university academic systems and culture.

As 2023 drew to a close, I attended a ‘Show, Tell and Talk’ workshop run by the Bristol Institute of Learning and Teaching (BILT) on International Student Experience.

This is an area of work that is close to my heart – being an international student at Bristol myself many moons ago, my international roles, and serendipitously, it was being organised by my netball teammate Catriona Johnson, from the Centre for Academic Language and Development (CALD).

L-R: Assoc Prof Liang-Fong Wong, Dr Fiona Holmes, and Dr Claire Hudson at BILT International Student Experience workshop, 2023.

Catriona and I had previously shared many courtside and car conversations about her project work on academic language and literacy, but have never interacted within our work capacities. I was delighted to turn up on the day to find fellow BMERG members Fiona Holmes and Claire Hudson there as well!

International staff and students are an important community at our institution: they are invaluable to the diversity of our campuses, adding richness and vibrancy to our learning environments and making us all much better global citizens for now and the future. There is so much that we can learn from each other across different cultures.

During the session, we were given an overview of the numerous BILT-funded projects across the university that explore themes such as increasing inclusivity in the international classroom, decolonising curricula and developing sense and belonging.

Fiona Hartley (BILT/CALD) presented the ‘3 shocks’ that international students can experience:

  • Pedagogical (knowing what to expect academically)
  • Language (how to express oneself academically)
  • Cultural (feeling a sense of belonging and community in Bristol)

What was really interesting was the observation that some of these shocks may not be unique to international students, and indeed may be familiar to others in the wider student population, particularly first-year students.

We discussed in small groups how different schools use effective interventions and ways to enhance teaching and learning experience within and outside of the classroom. There were so many great examples, such as:

  • optional induction modules
  • allocating groups and facilitating group work sensitively
  • academic integrity training
  • peer-assisted support sessions
  • promoting opportunities through the Global Lounge, Bristol Voices and Bristol Connects initiatives

Through sharing experiences across the whole university and across disciplines, it gave us ideas on how we can implement some of these strategies in our own practices.

All in all, I really enjoyed the session; it was such an enriching discussion and I got to know many people outside of the medical school.

I am very much looking forward to going to more of these workshops in 2024 and if you, like me, would like to participate here is the events link to the BILT website: Events | Bristol Institute For Learning and Teaching | University of Bristol


More about this blog author:

Dr Liang-Fong Wong is one of the University of Bristol’s Associate Pro-Vice Chancellors for Internationalisation as well as working as an Associate Professor in regenerative medicine. She also works with the undergraduate students as the Year 4 co-lead for the medical programme and is one of the inaugural members of the BMERG committee.


Conference Report: ASME Annual Scholarship Meeting 12-14th July 2023, Birmingham UK

Developing a Diverse Workforce

Continuing our conference report theme, Dr Ed Luff reflects on the Association for the Study of Medical Education Conference recently held in Birmingham, UK.

The Eastside Rooms Conference Centre, Birmingham UK

The 12th-14th of July brought the return of the Annual Scholarship Meeting (ASM) of the Association for the Study of Medical Education (ASME), which took place at the Eastside Rooms conference centre in Birmingham. The three-day programme of events saw representation from a wide range of attendees from Bristol Medical School and the Academies, presenting work at a national-level medical education conference. Presenters came from all areas within the school, from professors and lecturers to medical students and clinical teaching fellows (CTFs) to MSc and PhD students, showcasing the wide range of work conducted around medical education within Bristol Medical School.

Once again, this year Bristol was extremely well represented at the conference, with contributions comprising 2 workshops, 15 oral presentations and 29 poster presentations, which exceeded the high bar set at last year’s conference. Huge congratulations to all those who were involved in presenting, authoring, and contributing to the work that was presented, it really highlights the excellent and high-quality work that is being conducted both locally and regionally. Work was presented by academics from within the medical school, those based at academies around the region, including both North and South Bristol, Bath, Gloucester & Cheltenham, and Swindon, as well as current undergraduate medical students and doctors completing their MSc in Teaching and Learning for Health Professionals (TLHP) and PhD.

The range of topics and areas of the curriculum covered by presenters from Bristol ranged from paediatrics to palliative care, professionalism to research paradigms, interprofessional learning and simulations on Boeing 747’s, transgender and non-binary healthcare, and gamification of sexual health. Many presentations highlighted collaboration both within the medical school, across different academies and hospital sites, as well as with outside organisations and other institutions and healthcare professionals.

This year also saw the inclusion of a new presentation format at the conference, the ‘What’s Your Point?’ sessions, where presenters were invited to start a conversation and present on a topic of interest or debate. We had a thought-provoking oral presentation on the future of medical educators, and poster presentations on classical cases/ typical presentations, promoting interprofessional education, a professionalism reporting system and engagement with teaching innovations.

ASME as a conference provides a wonderfully welcoming and inclusive environment to inspire, engage and network. It is friendly and accessible, with sessions covering the full spectrum of medical education, from admissions and widening access, through undergraduate, foundation years, and postgraduate training. There really is something for everyone and the wide range of parallel ‘pre-conference’ and ‘intra-conference’ sessions, symposia and workshops provide an opportunity for attendees to build skills and develop in areas of personal interest.

Dr Alice Middleton, CTF co-lead, based at Gloucester Academy, reflected on her experiences from the conference:

“I presented about using virtual patients to teach clinical reasoning, and was encouraged by queries and enthusiasm about the project from members of the Technology Enhanced Learning ‘TEL’ special interest group of ASME – I have joined them! I also attended the TASME prize presentation session and talked to one of the presenters after the session, we have since been emailing about potentially collaborating on a project about teaching clinical reasoning which is exciting; it was a great opportunity to link up and learn from people doing similar-but-different things in other medical schools in the UK.”

Dr Sam Chumbley, a CTF based at South Bristol Academy commented:

“This was my first ever conference, and who knew they could be so fun?! I met so many like-minded people, and everyone commented on how approachable everyone is it ASME. You can be asking a presenter a question after their talk, and then sharing a meal with them later that day. The talks were fascinating, with a heavy focus on EDI topics this year, which has empowered me to speak up when seeing colleagues or patients being discriminated. Other talks focused on topics like innovation in education, which is always exciting to hear about, and has made me less terrified of the advent of AI in education. Ultimately, ASME has set the bar very high for future conferences I will attend!”

To showcase the amazing contributions made by those within the medical school, we have created a Sway which contains information about all the work presented by those associated with Bristol Medical School.* You can view summaries of the two workshops, copies of the abstracts for the oral and poster presentations and electronic versions of all the posters too. Access the sway via this link: BRMS at ASME 2023. A collated Bristol abstracts booklet can be viewed here:

The full ASME 2023 conference brochure can be downloaded here: ASME 2023 brochure. The conference brochure contains detailed information on keynote speakers, pre and intra-conference sessions including symposia and pop-up events, parallel sessions and oral presentations. The abstracts book can be downloaded here: ASME 2023 Abstracts book. The abstracts book contains details of all abstracts included at the ASM 2023. Each individual abstract has its own page including information on the authors and presenters. This includes submissions for e-Posters, oral presentations, relevant awards, and What’s Your Point? sessions. For information about joining ASME visit: www.asme.org.uk/membership/.  

Next year’s ASM will be held in Warwick, from the 10th-12th of July 2024, with the theme ‘Maximising Potential’. We hope that next year will bring further success for Bristol Medical School at ASME. We are also looking forward to the AMEE conference, which this year is being held in Glasgow from the 26th to the 30th of August. The best of luck to everyone who is presenting.


* We have done our best to ensure that all work presented at this event has been included here, but if you think we have missed yours and you would like it added, please get in touch.


Read Sarah Allsop’s Conference report on the June 2023 AOME-INHWE Conference here


Publishing in Medical Education: Matching

Sarah Allsop

In this blog, Sarah Allsop discusses the challenge of navigating how to choose and ‘match’ with your perfect publisher.

Thinking about how, when and where you are going to publish and disseminate the findings of your medical education research is an important step in your research journey. In fact, it should probably be a really early step, as consideration for how you are going to share your work can influence the type of journal or publisher that you look for.

Ask yourself right from the start,

  • What is the reach of this work, what audience am I trying to communicate with?
  • What is the value of this work, who will benefit from seeing the results and how can I make this most accessible to my target group?
  • What do I want the impact of my work to be, who am I hoping to influence?

By considering these types of questions, it can help you to consider where you want to publish your work. You can then try to match this with the aims and objectives of selected medical education journals.

Always cross-check the aims and author guidelines of your chosen journal to check the scope matches with your manuscripts content, design and emphasis

TOP TIP

The challenge will be that if you don’t match your work to the journal or publisher, this can be a swift road to rejection – and this is hard. It doesn’t however mean that your work is not good enough to be published. In fact a rejection at a very early stage is far more likely simply to mean that you have not matched the scope of the journal. Don’t be disheartened, as there is a place for all good work to be shared.

One of the things that can really help you when thinking about how to navigate the publishing journey is to make a list of your top five journals or publications where you would most like to publish your work. To start with do this really spontaneously and go for what you really want.

Then take a step back and carefully consider and critique these choices. Does my work match the scope of this journal? Is my work likely to be written up or is written up in the style that suits the readership of the journal? Is my work realistic for this publisher? You need to be honest – for example, if a particular journal states in its aims that it only publishes international collaborative work, if you have undertaken a small single-centre study, this is unlikely to get published in that particular journal.

Revisit your list and see if there are any journals that don’t match the work. Make sure you still have 3-5 options, so that you know from the start when your next submission will be if you get rejected from the first, it not only saves time but reminds you that the process might include rejection and that’s ok.

Next take a look at the manuscript types on offer from each of the journals on your list. These can usually be found in the ‘Author Guidelines’ section. It will describe in details all of the manuscript types, which are commissioned, which are accessible to all authors. It will also highlight formatting and referencing requirements, word lengths and open access agreements. Check again that your work matches closely to one of the manuscript types listed. If it does great, if not do you need to rethink your journal list.

Hopefully, by the end of this second step you have a list of journals that firstly, publish the type of manuscript you are writing to an audience you want to reach, and secondly you now know the word count, style and formatting you need to use to move forward.

Good luck with your writing and watch out for more blogs on publishing coming soon.

You may find the list of journals written by Olle ten Cate shared in our blog on journal lists useful: BMERG Blog: Publishing in Medical Education: List of Journals.

Publishing in Medical Education: List of Journals

Sarah Allsop

 

This blog is shared by Sarah Allsop as a place to start for those wanting to find out about where to publish medical education innovation and research.

  

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

Whether you have been working on a fantastic educational innovation or have undertaking a great piece of education research, the likelihood is you will want to share this with the wider medical education community. But, where so you publish it and how do you find out which journals publish medical education research?

Fortunately, Professor Doctor Olle ten Cate has produced an open access list of journals where it is possible to publish medical education research. Version 4 of this list (released in August 2022) comes complete with links to the journal websites and includes those related not only to medical education, but across the health professions and those written in languages other than English.

Access this really helpful list at: JOURNAL OPTIONS TO PUBLISH HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION

To cite this dataset: ten Cate, Olle (2022), “JOURNAL OPTIONS TO PUBLISH HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION ARTICLES”, University Medical Centre Utrecht, V1, doi: 10.17632/rf29ym3bpw.1

Hot Topics: Researcher skills – Creating your database search strategy

This blog is kindly written for BMERG by one of our amazing subject librarians, Richard Kielb. Richard takes us through some top tips around searching databases whilst undertaking your research, and some tips for breaking down the process.

Books on shelves
Photo by Paul Melki on Unsplash

When it comes to research, different search strategies are needed dependent on the nature and context of your work. Sometimes you may just need a book or a few relevant articles on a subject, and in this situation a quick search of your local library catalogue can often be sufficient. For more detailed research, it is likely to be more important to be able to carry out a comprehensive review of the literature, and this will usually require an advanced search using bibliographic databases.

So what is a bibliographic database? A database will allow you to search across very large numbers of academic sources simultaneously. Most of these sources will be academic journals, but some databases will include book chapters, conference proceedings, systematic reviews etc.

Different subjects will be supported by particular databases, so it will be important to identify the ones that are most relevant for you. Medical education would be a good example of a topic which would cross over more than one subject, so you would need to consider searching in databases recommended for both Medicine and Education as well as others with a multi-disciplinary focus.

Which databases you choose to use will depend very much on the topic you are researching and also what resources you have access to as an individual or a member of an institution. Many databases are not free to access and can be extremely expensive, but they are often provided by library services in organisations such as Universities and in the NHS.

Although the various databases have search interfaces that look quite different, the basic principles listed below will generally apply to all of them. Some of the functionality and ‘wildcard’ symbols etc might be slightly different, but there are usually help pages and guides available that will help indicate how it all works.

There are four basic stages to the database searching process:

  • Break your question down to its main concepts
  • Decide on the relevant search terms
  • Combine your search terms
  • Review your results

Breaking your question down to its main concepts

For clinical questions you may have come across the PICO formula to identify your concepts, and you can consider doing something similar for your medical-education topic. The social science framework called SPICE can be useful:

S – Setting Where does the research happen?
P – Population Who is your research focused on? Is your population defined by age, gender, ethnicity etc?
I – Intervention What are you investigating? Is it the use of technology or participation in a particular educational programme?
C – Comparator Are you comparing anything with your main intervention?
E – Evaluation Appraising the value, validity, or effectiveness of the intervention.

As with PICO you do not necessarily need to have a concept for every SPICE element.

Decide on the relevant search terms

Next you will need to consider what terms to search in relation to all of the different concepts. Include likely variations in terms in order to carry out a comprehensive review and to avoid missing any papers which are relevant to your topic. It will be important to factor in all synonyms, related terminology and any variations in spelling (particularly UK/US).

Keyword searching, also known as free-text searching, is where you will look for exact matches for your search terms in the titles and abstracts of journal articles. It is also useful to include searches in any controlled vocabulary offered by your chosen database, for example resources like Medline, ERIC and Cinahl offer ‘Subject Headings’, which make it easier to locate papers on a specific subject. Each article listed in the database is assigned a number of Subject Headings which represent what topics it covers. The advantage of this is that all of the articles on the same subject will be given the same subject heading, independent of the terminology used by the individual authors.

Combine your search terms

The Boolean search operators (OR, AND, NOT) can be used to combine your searches effectively.

  • Use OR to combine searches about the same concept – synonyms, related terms, variant spellings (e.g. Vitamin C OR ascorbic acid). This will broaden your search.
  • Use AND to combine searches about different concepts (e.g. caffeine AND asthma). This will narrow your search.
  • Use NOT to exclude terms from your search. This can be useful if you are retrieving some irrelevant content but use an element of caution as this can also remove useful material that may have mentioned the excluded term.

Review your results

Critically appraise your results (are they relevant to your research topic?) and decide if you need to make any changes to your search strategy. When you have run your search, you will often find that you either have more or fewer results than you were expecting.

  • Too many? Look for ways to make your search more specific. Can you add concepts? Are there valid ways to limit your results (publication date range, age group, language etc)?
  • Too few? Look for ways to make your search more general. Are there any terms that could be removed? Would broader search terms be useful?

Setting ‘limits’ can also be helpful as many of the databases will provide a series of in-built limits and filters, so it can be useful to investigate the options available.

Remember that your local Librarian will be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about using bibliographic databases and finding information more generally! At the University of Bristol you can find your subject specific librarian at: www.bris.ac.uk/library/subject-support/