Objectives: Multi-institutional research increases the generalizability of research findings. However, little is known about characteristics of collaborations across institutions in health sciences education research. Using a systematic review process, the authors describe characteristics of published, peer-reviewed multi-institutional health sciences education research to inform educators who are considering such projects. Methods: Two medical librarians searched MEDLINE, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for English-language studies published between 2004 and 2013 using keyword terms related to multi-institutional systems and health sciences education. Teams of two authors reviewed each study and resolved coding discrepancies through consensus. Collected data points included funding, research network involvement, author characteristics, learner characteristics, and research methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred eighteen of 310 articles met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three (53%) studies received external and/or internal financial support (87% listed external funding, 37% listed internal funding). Forty-five funded studies involved graduate medical education programs. Twenty (17%) studies involved a research or education network. Eighty-five (89%) publications listed an author with a master’s degree or doctoral degree. Ninety-two (78%) studies were descriptive, whereas 26 studies (22%) were experimental. The reported study outcomes were changes in student attitude (38%; n=44), knowledge (26%; n=31), or skill assessment (23%; n=27), as well as patient outcomes (9%; n=11). Conclusions: Multi-institutional descriptive studies reporting knowledge or attitude outcomes are highly published. Our findings indicate that funding resources are not essential to successfully undertake multi-institutional projects. Funded studies were more likely to originate from graduate medical or nursing programs.
展开▼
机译：目标：多机构研究提高了研究结果的推广性。但是，人们对卫生科学教育研究中跨机构合作的特征了解甚少。作者使用系统的审查过程，描述了已发表的，经过同行审查的多机构健康科学教育研究的特点，以告知正在考虑此类项目的教育工作者。方法：两名医学馆员使用与多机构系统和健康科学教育相关的关键词，搜索了MEDLINE，教育资源信息中心（ERIC），EMBASE和CINAHL数据库，以查找2004年至2013年之间发布的英语语言研究。两位作者组成的小组审查了每项研究，并通过共识解决了编码差异。收集的数据点包括资金，研究网络的参与，作者特征，学习者特征和研究方法。使用描述性统计数据分析数据。结果：310篇文章中有18篇符合纳入标准。六十三（53％）个研究获得了外部和/或内部财务支持（87％列出的外部资金，37％列出的内部资金）。四十五项资助的研究涉及研究生医学教育计划。二十（17％）项研究涉及研究或教育网络。八十五（89％）个出版物列出了具有硕士学位或博士学位的作者。 92项研究（78％）是描述性研究，而26项研究（22％）是实验性研究。报告的研究结果是学生态度的改变（38％; n = 44），知识（26％; n = 31）或技能评估（23％; n = 27）以及患者的结果（9％; n） = 11）。结论：报告知识或态度结果的多机构描述性研究已高度发表。我们的研究结果表明，资金资源对于成功开展多机构项目并不是必不可少的。资助的研究更有可能来自研究生的医学或护理计划。
展开▼
