Abstract

Introduction: Identifying priority research topics that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders should maximize research investment. Aim: To identify priorities for health education research. Methods: A three-stage sequential mixed methods study was conducted. Priorities for health education research were identified through a qualitative survey with 104 students, patients, academics, and clinicians across five health sciences and 12 professions (stage 1). These findings were analyzed using framework analysis and transposed into a quantitative survey whereby 780 stakeholders rated and ranked the identified priorities. Descriptive statistics identified priorities, exploratory factor analysis grouped priorities and differences between stakeholders were determined using Mann–Whitney U tests (stage 2). Six individual or group interviews with 16 participants (stage 3) further explicated the results from previous stages. Results: Of 30 priorities identified, the top were: how best to ensure students develop the required skills for work; how to promote resiliency and well-being in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares students for work. For the majority of priorities, no significant differences were found between different stakeholder groups. Conclusions: These findings will be used to inform health educational research strategy both locally and nationally. Further research should explore if setting priorities can be translated effectively into education research policy and practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1029-1038
Number of pages10
JournalMedical Teacher
Volume41
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 29 May 2019

Cite this

@article{9a205a70a9104a6ab9b33c3d568c3fa4,
title = "Setting priorities for health education research: A mixed methods study",
abstract = "Introduction: Identifying priority research topics that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders should maximize research investment. Aim: To identify priorities for health education research. Methods: A three-stage sequential mixed methods study was conducted. Priorities for health education research were identified through a qualitative survey with 104 students, patients, academics, and clinicians across five health sciences and 12 professions (stage 1). These findings were analyzed using framework analysis and transposed into a quantitative survey whereby 780 stakeholders rated and ranked the identified priorities. Descriptive statistics identified priorities, exploratory factor analysis grouped priorities and differences between stakeholders were determined using Mann–Whitney U tests (stage 2). Six individual or group interviews with 16 participants (stage 3) further explicated the results from previous stages. Results: Of 30 priorities identified, the top were: how best to ensure students develop the required skills for work; how to promote resiliency and well-being in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares students for work. For the majority of priorities, no significant differences were found between different stakeholder groups. Conclusions: These findings will be used to inform health educational research strategy both locally and nationally. Further research should explore if setting priorities can be translated effectively into education research policy and practice.",
author = "Palermo, {Claire E.} and Olivia King and Tina Brock and Ted Brown and Paul Crampton and Helen Hall and Janet Macaulay and Julia Morphet and Matthew Mundy and Louise Oliaro and Sophie Paynter and Brett Williams and Caroline Wright and Rees, {Charlotte E}",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1080/0142159X.2019.1612520",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "1029--1038",
journal = "Medical Teacher",
issn = "0142-159X",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Setting priorities for health education research

T2 - A mixed methods study

AU - Palermo, Claire E.

AU - King, Olivia

AU - Brock, Tina

AU - Brown, Ted

AU - Crampton, Paul

AU - Hall, Helen

AU - Macaulay, Janet

AU - Morphet, Julia

AU - Mundy, Matthew

AU - Oliaro, Louise

AU - Paynter, Sophie

AU - Williams, Brett

AU - Wright, Caroline

AU - Rees, Charlotte E

PY - 2019/5/29

Y1 - 2019/5/29

N2 - Introduction: Identifying priority research topics that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders should maximize research investment. Aim: To identify priorities for health education research. Methods: A three-stage sequential mixed methods study was conducted. Priorities for health education research were identified through a qualitative survey with 104 students, patients, academics, and clinicians across five health sciences and 12 professions (stage 1). These findings were analyzed using framework analysis and transposed into a quantitative survey whereby 780 stakeholders rated and ranked the identified priorities. Descriptive statistics identified priorities, exploratory factor analysis grouped priorities and differences between stakeholders were determined using Mann–Whitney U tests (stage 2). Six individual or group interviews with 16 participants (stage 3) further explicated the results from previous stages. Results: Of 30 priorities identified, the top were: how best to ensure students develop the required skills for work; how to promote resiliency and well-being in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares students for work. For the majority of priorities, no significant differences were found between different stakeholder groups. Conclusions: These findings will be used to inform health educational research strategy both locally and nationally. Further research should explore if setting priorities can be translated effectively into education research policy and practice.

AB - Introduction: Identifying priority research topics that meet the needs of multiple stakeholders should maximize research investment. Aim: To identify priorities for health education research. Methods: A three-stage sequential mixed methods study was conducted. Priorities for health education research were identified through a qualitative survey with 104 students, patients, academics, and clinicians across five health sciences and 12 professions (stage 1). These findings were analyzed using framework analysis and transposed into a quantitative survey whereby 780 stakeholders rated and ranked the identified priorities. Descriptive statistics identified priorities, exploratory factor analysis grouped priorities and differences between stakeholders were determined using Mann–Whitney U tests (stage 2). Six individual or group interviews with 16 participants (stage 3) further explicated the results from previous stages. Results: Of 30 priorities identified, the top were: how best to ensure students develop the required skills for work; how to promote resiliency and well-being in students; and ensuring the curriculum prepares students for work. For the majority of priorities, no significant differences were found between different stakeholder groups. Conclusions: These findings will be used to inform health educational research strategy both locally and nationally. Further research should explore if setting priorities can be translated effectively into education research policy and practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066792957&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1612520

DO - 10.1080/0142159X.2019.1612520

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 1029

EP - 1038

JO - Medical Teacher

JF - Medical Teacher

SN - 0142-159X

IS - 9

ER -