Mind the Gap: Representation of Medical Education in Cardiology-Related Articles and Journals

Clint Allred; Kathryn Berlacher; Saurabh Aggarwal; Alex J. Auseon

摘要

Background?Cardiology fellowship programs are at the interface of medical education and the care of patients suffering from the leading cause of mortality in the United States, yet there is an apparent lack of research guiding the effective education of fellows.;Objective?We sought to quantify the number of publications in cardiology journals that pertained to the education of cardiology trainees and the number of cardiologists participating in education research.;Methods?For the period between January and December 2012, we cataloged cardiology-specific and general medical/medical education journals and sorted them by impact factor. Tables of content were reviewed for articles with an educational focus, a cardiology focus, or both. We recorded the authors' areas of medical training, and keywords from each cardiology journal's mission statement were reviewed for emphasis on education.;Results?Twenty-six cardiology journals, containing 6645 articles, were reviewed. Only 4 articles had education themes. Ten general medical and 15 medical education journals contained 6810 articles. Of these, only 7 focused on medical education in cardiology, and none focused on cardiology fellowship training. Among the 4887 authors of publications in medical education journals, 25 were cardiologists (less than 1%), and among the 1036 total words in the mission statements of all cardiology journals, the term “education” appeared once.;Conclusions?Published educational research is lacking in cardiology training, and few cardiologists appear to be active members of the education scholarship community. Cardiology organizations and academic journals should support efforts to identify target areas of study and publish scholarship in educational innovation.;What was known and gap Education research could inform the training of cardiologists to enhance the care of patients suffering from cardiac disease.;What is new There is a paucity of empirical publications guiding the effective education of cardiology fellows.;Limitations Search was limited to published articles and may have overlooked relevant research not published in peer-reviewed journals.;Bottom line Published educational research is lacking in cardiology training, and specialty organizations and academic journals should identify study areas and publish scholarship in educational innovation.;Introduction Medical education is a recognized area of specialization, with an academic community and peer-reviewed journals. Occasionally, influential education research is published in general medical journals, but it is more typically confined to journals with medical education as their priority. Previous reviews have noted that education research has been traditionally weighted toward undergraduate medical education,1 but changes in trainee duty hours, evolution in program accreditation, and the tenuous balance of federal funding with anticipated physician workforce shortages create a need for data-driven reform of graduate medical education (GME).2,3 Cardiology fellowships are a specific cohort within GME programs. Due to the morbidity and mortality of heart disease, fellowship training in cardiology has a high potential for impact on population health in the United States. Cardiology is among the most prolific areas in medical research, producing new knowledge in clinical and translational science. In stark contrast, research describing educational innovations in cardiology appear to be rare. We hypothesize that few cardiologists engage in medical education research as their primary career interest, and that medical education research is rarely published in high-impact cardiology journals. To serve as a needs assessment for the promotion of cardiology-specific medical education research, we (1) quantified medical education research published in cardiology journals; (2) quantified medical education research pertaining specifically to cardiology training; (3) quantified cardiologists participating in medi

机译：背景：在美国，心脏病学研究金计划处于医学教育和对导致死亡的首要原因的患者的护理之间，但显然缺乏指导研究者有效教育的研究。量化与心血管病学历教育有关的心脏病学期刊上的出版物数量以及参与教育研究的心脏病学家的数量。方法：在2012年1月至2012年12月期间，我们对心脏病学和一般医学/医学教育期刊进行了分类并按影响因素对其进行排序。审查了目录，查找了具有教育重点和/或心脏病学或两者兼有的文章。我们记录了作者的医学培训领域，并审查了每篇心脏病学期刊的任务声明中的关键词，以强调教育。结果：共审查了26种心脏病学期刊，其中包含6645篇文章。只有4篇文章具有教育主题。十种普通医学和15种医学教育期刊包含6810篇文章。其中，只有7家专注于心脏病学医学教育，而没有一家专注于心脏病学研究金培训。在医学教育期刊的4887位作者中，有25位是心脏病专家（不到1％），并且在所有心脏病学期刊的使命陈述中共有1036个单词中，“教育”一词出现了一次。缺乏心脏病学培训，并且几乎没有心脏病专家是教育奖学金界的积极成员。心脏病学组织和学术期刊应支持努力确定目标研究领域并发表有关教育创新的奖学金。;已知的知识和差距教育研究可为心脏病专家的培训提供信息，以增强对心脏病患者的护理。很少有经验出版物可以指导心脏病学同仁的有效教育。局限性搜索仅限于已发表的文章，并且可能忽略了在同行评审期刊上未发表的相关研究。底线心脏病学培训缺少发表的教育研究，并且专业组织和学术期刊应确定研究领域并发表有关教育创新的奖学金。简介医学教育是公认的专业领域，拥有学术界和同行评审的期刊。有时，有影响力的教育研究会在一般医学期刊上发表，但通常仅限于优先考虑医学教育的期刊。先前的评论指出，教育研究历来偏重于本科医学教育，1但实习生工作时间的变化，计划认证的发展以及联邦资金与预期的医生劳动力短缺之间的脆弱平衡，导致了对数据驱动型医疗改革的需求。研究生医学教育（GME）。2,3心脏病学奖学金是GME课程中的特定人群。由于心脏病的发病率和死亡率，心脏病学的进修培训对美国的人口健康具有很大的影响潜力。心脏病学是医学研究中最多产的领域之一，在临床和转化科学领域产生了新知识。与之形成鲜明对比的是，描述心脏病学教育创新的研究似乎很少。我们假设几乎没有心脏病专家从事医学教育研究是他们的主要职业兴趣，并且医学教育研究很少在影响较大的心脏病学期刊上发表。为了作为促进心脏病学医学教育研究的需求评估，我们（1）量化发表在心脏病学期刊上的医学教育研究; （2）专门针对心脏病学培训的量化医学教育研究; （3）参与medi的量化心脏病专家

Mind the Gap: Representation of Medical Education in Cardiology-Related Articles and Journals

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅