Abstract
BackgroundEvidence synthesis techniques in healthcare education have been enhanced through the activities of experts in the field and the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaborative. Despite this, significant heterogeneity in techniques and reporting of healthcare education systematic review still exist and limit the usefulness of such reports. The aim of this project was to produce the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement to offer a guide for reporting evidence synthesis in health education for use by authors and journal editors.MethodsA review of existing published evidence synthesis consensus statements was undertaken. A modified Delphi process was used. In stage one, expert participants were asked to state whether common existing items identified were relevant, to suggest relevant texts and specify any items they feel should be included. The results were analysed and a second stage commenced where all synthesised items were presented and participants asked to state whether they should be included or amend as needed. After further analysis, the full statement was sent for final review and comment.ResultsNineteen experts participated in the panel from 35 invitations. Thirteen text sources were proposed, six existing items amended and twelve new items synthesised. After stage two, 25 amended consensus items were proposed for inclusion. The final statement contains several items unique to this context, including description of relevant conceptual frameworks or theoretical constructs, description of qualitative methodologies with rationale for their choice and presenting the implications for educators in practice of the results obtained.ConclusionsAn international expert panel has agreed upon a consensus statement of 25 items for the reporting of evidence synthesis within healthcare education. This unique set of items is focused on context, rather than a specific methodology. This statement can be used for those writing for publication and reviewing such manuscripts to ensure reporting supports and best informs the wider healthcare education community.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0143-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
The draft STORIES statement was used to assess contemporaneous medical education systematic reviews, both to assess whether it is fit for purpose or to guide refinements as needed
Feedback leading to changes of the final document was received from four experts, with no further concerns raised from the other experts
None of the studies reviewed provided an appropriate framework for defining, measuring or understanding emotional intelligence (EI) within their work. This resulted in the inclusion in this review of a wide range of EI proxy measures, illustrates the problems caused by the broad definition of EI and related constructs within medical education.’ [43]
Summary
The heterogeneity of learning theories and teaching approaches employed makes such a review a difficult undertaking This difficulty is compounded by the varying ways that professionalism has been defined and the lack of consensus on what criteria make up medical professionalism.’. Responses from the field highlighted that medical education research ‘cannot be viewed in such a uni-dimensional way’ [9] and essentially suggests that evidence should not be viewed in hierarchies of quality but should be selected like colours in a rich tapestry [10]. This means that in the field of medical education, the issues of evidence synthesis are far more complex and challenging
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
