If you teach them, they will learn: Why medical education needs comparative effectiveness research

Advances in Health Sciences Education

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 305-310

  Cook, David A ^a,b  

^a MAYO CLINIC COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Mayo Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; EDITORIAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; UNITED STATES;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; HUMANS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84862698819     PISSN: 13824996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-012-9381-0     Document Type: Editorial

References (26)

1. Albert, M., Hodges, B., & Regehr, G. (2007). Research in medical education: Balancing service and science. Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory and Practice, 12, 103-115.
2. Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., & Ravaud, P. (2008). for the CONSORT group. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 148, 295-309.
3. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-459.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Cook, D. A. (2005). The research we still are not doing: An agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Academic Medicine, 80, 541-548.
6. Cook, D. A. (2009). Avoiding confounded comparisons in education research. Medical Education, 43, 102-104.
7. Cook, D. A. (2010). Twelve tips for evaluating educational programs. Medical Teacher, 32, 296-301.
8. Cook, D. A., & Beckman, T. J. (2008). Reflections on experimental research in medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory and Practice. doi: 10. 1007/s10459-008-9117-3 (Epub ahead of print 22 April 2008).
9. Cook, D. A., Beckman, T. J., & Bordage, G. (2007). Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: A systematic review. Medical Education, 41, 737-745.
10. Cook, D. A., Bordage, G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2008a). Description, justification, and clarification: A framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Medical Education, 42, 128-133.
11. Cook, D. A., Erwin, P. J., & Triola, M. M. (2010a). Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine, 85, 1589-1602.
12. Cook, D. A., Hatala, R., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Szostek, J. H., Wang, A. T., et al. (2011a). Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA, 306, 978-988.
13. Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., & Garside, S. (2011b). Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: A systematic review. Medical Education, 45, 227-238.
14. Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008b). Internet-based learning in the health professions: A meta-analysis. JAMA, 300, 1181-1196.
15. Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2010b). Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine, 85, 909-922.
16. Ellis, P., Baker, C., & Hanger, M. (2007). Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: Issues and options for an expanded federal role. Washington, D. C.: Congressional Budget Office, Congress of the United States.
17. Friedman, C. (1994). The research we should be doing. Academic Medicine, 69, 455-457.
18. Giacomini, M. (2009). Theory-based medicine and the role of evidence: Why the emperor needs new clothes, again. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52, 234-251.
19. Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2004). Complex interventions: How "out of control" can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ, 328, 1561-1563.
20. Hochman, M., & McCormick, D. (2010). Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications. JAMA, 303, 951-958.
21. McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Cohen, E. R., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2011). Does simulation-based medical education with deliberate practice yield better results than traditional clinical education? A meta-analytic comparative review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 86, 706-711.
22. Norman, G. (2003). RCT = results confounded and trivial: The perils of grand educational experiments. Medical Education, 37, 582-584.
23. Reed, D. A., Kern, D. E., Levine, R. B., & Wright, S. M. (2005). Costs and funding for published medical education research. JAMA, 294, 1052-1057.
24. Regehr, G. (2010). It's NOT rocket science: Rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Medical Education, 44, 31-39.
25. Sox, H. C., & Greenfield, S. (2009). For the institute of medicine committee on comparative effectiveness research prioritization. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research: Report brief. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. Zendejas, B., Wang, A. T., Brydges, R., Hamstra, S. J., & Cook, DA. Cost: The missing outcome in simulation-based medical education research: A systematic review. Accepted (in press), Surgery.